Tumulus (destroyed): OS Grid Reference – SP 641 715
Also Known as:
Oster Hill
Archaeology & History
At the northeastern edge of Torkington Lodge, nearly a mile east of West Haddon, the antiquarian John Bridge (1791) told of the existence of prehistoric barrow that was still visible here around the year 1720. Described by the Royal Commission lads (1981), when they visited the site they found that “no trace of a mound exists.” Just a few years earlier the place-name analysts, Gover, Mawer & Stenton (1975) told that:
“There is a tumulus here and it would seem most likely that the name goes back to Old Scandinavian austr, ‘east’, and haugr, hence “eastern barrow.”
Folklore
Mr J. Bridge (1791) reported how the local people said, “according to vulgar tradition, are buried several officers who fell in battle” within the tumulus. He also suggested the name of the mound derived from “the tumulus of Publius Ostorius”: a Roman statesman and general who governed Britain from 47-52 AD.
References:
Bridge, John, The History and Antiquities of Northamptonshire – volume 1, Thomas Payne: Oxford 1791.
Gover, J.E.B., Mawer, A. & Stenton, F.M., The Place-Names of Northamptonshire, Cambridge University Press 1975.
Royal Commission on Historical Monuments, England, An Inventory of the Historical Monuments in the County of Northamptonshire – Volume III: Archaeological Sites in North-West Northamptonshire, HMSO: London 1981.
Any remains of this once sacred site are now beneath the airport between Benson and Ewelme, a couple of miles northeast of Wallingford, on the eastern side of the River Thames. A great pity. It was one of the early cursus monuments discovered as a result of Major G.W. Allen’s many aerial surveys in southern England — as shown in his photo here — and subsequently described in Mr Leeds’ (1934) Antiquaries Journal article. A cluster of cursus monuments were built in this part of England in neolithic times, and Roy Loveday (2006) includes the Benson Cursus as an ingredient within the ‘sacred landscape’ region of what he calls “the Dorchester-on-Thames complex.” The Benson Cursus and surrounding regional monuments,
“in fact possesses features that would declare it as an inter-regional sanctuary if encountered in an historical setting; namely, intensity of monument construction, longevity of respect, addition of later exotic monuments with far-flung parallels, large numbers of burials, and placement in a landscape structured, partly at least, by other monuments. These elements recur from Delphi to Uppsala, and from Pachacarmaca to Mecca, at sites that Mircea Eliade (sic) has termed hierophanies — locations where the otherworld of gods and ancestors communicate with the living.”
Loveday’s 2006 planBenson Cursus plan (after Barclay & Lambrick)
It’s good to know that the correct paradigms are at last emerging from those archaeocentric minds!
In Mr Loveday’s (2006) plan of the cursus, no entrances could be found into the monument apart from a small section along the northeastern length of the structure (left). From its southernmost point, this giant monument runs along a SSW-NNE alignment — one echoed in other nearby cursuses — for 1192 yards (1090m) and is 71 yards (65m) across, covering 7.3 hectares in all. No internal structures were noted anywhere within the monument.
…to be continued…
References:
Barclay, A., Lambrick, G., Moore, J. & Robinson, M., Lines in the Landscape, OAU: Oxford 2003.
Benson, D. & Miles, D., The Upper Thames Valley: An Archaeological Survey of the River Gravels, Oxford Archaeology Unit 1974.
Eliade, Mircea, The Sacred and the Profane, Harcourt, Brace & World: New York 1959.
Leeds, E.T., “Rectangular Enclosures of the Bronze Age in the Upper Thames Valley, in Antiquaries Journal, 14:4, 1934.
Loveday, Roy, Inscribed Across the Landscape, Tempus: Stroud 2006.
Cup-and-Ring Stone: OS Grid Reference – SO 9875 2825
Archaeology & History
Nottingham Hill cup-and-ring
A rare find this! In October 1981, in deepest Gloucestershire on the edge of the Nottingham Hill Iron Age hillfort, archaeologists sifting through what they ostensibly called “occupational debris” along the western edge of the huge enclosed monument, found a singular piece of local oolitic limestone etched with an archetypal cup-and-ring design! The carving was on a typical ‘portable’ piece of stone and would not have been amiss had it been uncovered in a neolithic or Bronze Age cairn in our more northern climes. But this southern example is something of an anomaly.
In Morris & Marshall’s (1983) description of the stone they told how,
“it was found as a loose block lying with the worked surface uppermost, and half-embedded in the plough-soil, together with other slabs and irregular lumps of oolitic limestone of similar size, and of closely related rock-type. The object is a discreet slab with an unworked under-surface weathered by percolation of ground-water along a joint.”
Drawing of the carving
They found that the carved stone was typical of other rocks making up the ramparts at the outer-edges of the hillfort, and at some point in its history may possibly having been included in the walled structures of the fortress itself. However, this is unlikely to have been the original use of the carving. Its inclusion in the Iron Age ramparts would more be a likely consequence of it being appropriated from another, much earlier archaeological site in the area — a chambered tomb or long barrow for example. This re-use of cup-marked stones in the Cotswolds is known to have occurred in the village of Salford, on the church cross-base, 18.75 miles (30.2km) east of here.
The Nottingham Hill cup-and-ring was described in some detail by Morris & Marshall (1983). The rock on which it was carved measured one square-foot in size and barely 3 inches thick. The central cup-mark measured,
“approximately 15.5cm in diameter, and a shallow radial groove (channel 1) leads from it to the edge of the stone. The central cup-mark is surrounded close to its lip by a penannular channel or ‘ring’ (channel 2), which has a small depression at one end. This end of channel 2 appears to be discontinuous with channel 1, but there is a very lightly pecked connection at the other end. Outside channel 2 is a second shallower ring or channel (channel 3) but because of its shallowness it is difficult to determine whether it links with the radial channel 1. Channel 3 contains a clear, small cup-mark part-way along its length, and is quite definite on one side of the central cup-mark, and on the other side it is possibly mirrored by a rather indistinct depression or cup-mark and length of channel. Channel 3 is not continuous throughout its length, ending where it meets the edge of the stone beyond the small cup-marks.”
It is obvious that the carving, whenever it was made, was not subjected to long-term exposure to the outside air, as the carved design would have eroded quite quickly on the oolitic limestone.
Royal Commission on Historical Monuments, England, Ancient and Historical Monuments in the County of Gloucester: Volume 1 – Iron Age and Romano-British Monuments in the Gloucestershire Cotswolds, HMSO: London 1976.
Dead easy! Just about in the middle of the village, by the side of the road where a seat allows the weary walker a chance to sit and rest, the Tarry Stone stands before it, with a plaque on the wall above the seat. The old postcard here shows its situation clear enough!
Archaeology & History
The history of this large rock near the middle of Cookham village is important in the history of the old village, though there is no direct evidence to give it a prehistoric pedigree. It was known to be an ancient boundary stone and is included in perambulation records of the area, where local people would annually walk and redefine the landscape of Cookham: a pastime known across the land, but which fell into disuse in Victorian times. Such perambulations are thought to trace way back into the mythic lands of prehistory — so the Tarry Stone here may well have an archaic provenance.
The known history of the stone was gathered and described in Stephen Darby’s (1899) rare work on the place-name history of Cookham. He wrote:
“A stone 3½ ft high, by 4 ft long, and 2½ ft thick. This formerly stood in Cookham village, about two feet from Dodson’s fence, where the roads parted to the church and the ferry. It is now in the Mill Garden at Cookham, where it was removed by the late George Venables when he was church-warden. This stone was formerly known as Cookham Stone.
“A.D. 1506: The tithing man presents that the Warrener ought to hold sports at Cookham Stone on the day of Assumption; and he has not done so (Cookham Manor Court Rolls).
“The stone was originally a boundary stone to the property of the Abbot of Cirencester, whose house was close by, as is shown in the will of John Luffenham, A.D. 1423.”
An old plaque that was once attached to the rock told, “The Tarry Stone at which sports were held before 1507 AD, stood formerly 50 yards NNE and was replaced here AD 1909 by order of the parish council.” The position described “50 yards away” was next to an old pub with the fascinating legendary name of ‘Bel and the Old Dragon’!
Folklore
Dennis Curran’s 1976 drawing
One of the main reasons this site has been included here is the legendary attachments. When the stone was moved from its original position in 1839 by a certain George Venables, to nearby Mill House Gardens, local people told how the Venable family thereafter were cursed. It was thereafter moved back to its earlier site!
The stone has been suggested as a meteorite — a theme that was echoed in Peter Ackroyd’s Thames (2007), but the Tarry Stone is a regional sarsen rock, albeit peppered with erosion holes, giving a more ‘foreign’ look to it!
Cookham was also the village where the spirit of the god Herne “winds his horn and the music of his hounds can be heard from across the common.” (Yarrow 1974) The stone was also the focal point of village games in earlier centuries.
References:
Ackroyd, Peter, The Thames: Sacred River, Chatto & Windus: London 2007.
Darby, Stephen, Place and Field-Names of Cookham, Berkshire, privately printed: London 1899.
Hallam, Elizabeth, Domesday Heritage, Arrow: London 1986.
Cup-Marked Stone: OS Grid Reference – ST 9583 0294
Also Known as
Badbury Rings Carving
Shapwick 6a carving
Archaeology & History
Badbury Barrow carving (after J.F.S. Stone 1958)
Amidst what was once a veritable gathering of prehistoric tombs on the ground immediately west of the Badbury Rings hillfort — a small necropolis no less! — one particular tumulus which Leslie Grinsell named as ‘Shapwick 6a‘ was in the process of being destroyed at the end of October, 1845, but was fortunate in receiving the quick attention of a local historian called John Austen, who gave us the first known account of the place. (a fuller profile of the Badbury Barrow can be found here) Inside the churned-up remains of Badbury Barrow, which measured 62 feet across and 9 feet high, Mr Austin found a fascinating number of urns and other remains and, shortly after, this rare example of a petroglyph was identified. The stone now lives in the British Museum where, the last I knew, you could certainly check it out. But it’s not its original size, as sections of the stone were broken off. As Aubrey Burl (1987) told us, the stone was originally about half-a-ton in weight, on which,
“were carvings of five cupmarks, two bronze daggers and two flat, triangular axes of early Breton type.”
Grinsell’s more detailed description of the carving from his work on Dorset Barrows (1959) tells a little more of the design found on this seeming ‘tomb-stone’:
“Sandstone slab, probably from stone cist, decorated with pecked carvings of two daggers with hilts, resembling those on stone 53 at Stonehenge; two triangular objects probably intended to be flat bronze axe-heads expanding at their cutting-edge; and five cup-shaped hollows. The existing decorated fragment (in British Museum) is 1ft 10in long, and was detached from the original slab which weighed probably more than half a ton. The size suggests, perhaps, a cover-slab.”
It may well have been. Certainly it had some relationship to death! The design was suggested in the 19th century to perhaps have been influenced by Greek imagery, when such notions were in vogue. As Grinsell tells,
“In the centre according to Durden…was the well-known large slab of sandstone which was decorated with carvings of daggers and axes, the former of type similar to those from Stonehenge, conjectured to be of Mycenean type.”
But the Mycenean nature of the carvings is highly unlikely. What is intriguing with this carving is the appearance of cup-markings (commonly associated in or adjacent to prehistoric tombs) alongside defined symbols of daggers. We could infer a magickal relationship between the two symbols here: one of which, the cups, comes from a much earlier period than the dagger-design. A more in-depth analysis of the human remains within the tumulus and a plan of the site would perhaps be more revealing…
…to be continued…
References:
Austen, John H., “Archaeological Intelligence,” in Archaeological Journal, volume 3, 1846.
Burl, Aubrey, The Stonehenge People, Guild: London 1987.
Grinsell, Leslie V., Dorset Barrows, Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society 1959.
Knight, Peter, Ancient Stones of Dorset, Power: Ferndown 1996.
Royal Commission on Historical Monuments, England, An Inventory of the Historical Monuments in the County of Dorset – Volume 5: East Dorset, HMSO: London 1975.
Stone, J.F.S., Wessex Before the Celts, Thames & Hudson: London 1958.
Warne, Charles, The Celtic Tumuli of Dorset, John Russell Smith: London 1866.
Of at least 26 prehistoric barrows or tumuli in close proximity on the grasslands immediately west of the Badbury hillfort, this particular ‘Badbury Barrow’ as it’s generally called, was the most intriguing of the bunch. Intriguing as it was found to possess a very rare carved stone near its centre, and had the elements of the dead laid out in a quite fascinating manner, with a large inner wall that surrounded the dead. Grinsell (1959) posited that this site may be the same one described on the 1826 Greenwood Map of the region as the ‘Straw Barrow’ – in which case I’d love to know if there are earlier place-name references to the site and see what its name is thought to mean. (Mills’ PNs Dorset, 2, could be helpful – though it could be just ‘straw’!) However, the Straw Barrow is some distance to the west of here.
The first lengthy description of the site was done very soon after the near destruction of the place in 1845. A local man called John Austen visited and described the old tumulus in some considerable detail, and I make no apologies for adding his complete description of the barrow, as he found it, just before the land-owner levelled the place. He wrote:
“On Nov. 1, 1845, I accidentally ascertained that a barrow situated about five miles from Wimborne, Dorset, upon the road leading to Blandford, and in the immediate neighbourhood of Badbury camp, was in progress of being levelled. The circumstance which chiefly attracted my notice was the vast quantities of large sandstones and flints which had been taken from it. Unfortunately nearly two-thirds of the tumulus were already removed. From the remainder, however, I have obtained a tolerably accurate idea of its interior arrangement, which, with perhaps the exception of the ‘Deverill barrow’, opened by W. Miles, Esq., in 1825, is more highly interesting than any yet examined. The labourer employed could give me but little information respecting the part already destroyed, further than that he had thrown up many pieces of pottery, and found one urn in a perfect state, but in removal he had broken it; sufficient however remained to enable me to ascertain its form and dimensions. It measured 8 inches in height, 6¾ inches at the mouth, and at the bottom 3½ inches. The colour of the outer side was more red than is usual, and within it had a black hard ash adhering to the side, It was inverted, and contained only a few white ashes. It was ornamented with lines of from nine to fourteen fine pricked dots, as if made with a portion of a small tooth comb. Such an instrument was discovered a few years since by some workmen, whilst lowering a hill midway betwixt Badbury camp and the village of Shapwicke, having at one end a small circular hole, and at the other eight short teeth like those of a comb. It was four inches long and one inch wide, and was part of the rib of a deer…
“The barrow was circular, measuring about eighty yards in circumference, the diameter sixty-two feet, and the height nine feet; it had however been considerably reduced by the plough. Upon clearing a section across the centre, the following formation presented itself. The outside circle or foot of the barrow was of chalk, occupying a space of fifteen feet towards the centre. There was then a wall extending completely round, and enclosing an area of about thirty feet in diameter, composed of large masses of sandstone brought from some part of the heath, probably from Lytchett, a distance of not less than five miles, and across the river Stour. These stones were well packed together as in the foundations of a building, and the interstices tightly filled with flints. Within this wall, for the space of three or four feet, was a bed of flints, without any mixture of earth or chalk, packed together from the floor to the surface of the barrow, having only a few inches of earth above. The remainder of the interior was occupied by large sandstones, serving to protect the various interments.
Urn found in one cist
“About the centre I found six deposits. The most northern of these was the skeleton of a young child, by the side of which, proceeding west, there was a cist containing a deposit of ashes and burnt bones; and near it another, rather above the floor, containing burnt wood. Immediately beneath this was a cist containing an urn, placed with its mouth downwards, and filled with burnt bones, which were perfectly dry and white. It was without any ornament, and measured in height ten and a quarter inches; the diameter at the mouth, which turned outwards, was eight and three-quarter inches, and at the bottom four inches. The other cists contained burnt bones and ashes. Sandstones had been placed over them, but were removed without my having an opportunity of ascertaining their position. A short distance south of these deposits there was a cist containing the bones and skull of a young child, over which had been placed a flat sandstone, and about a foot from it appeared a deposit of small bones, occupying a space of only two feet ; these were apparently the remains of a woman. Immediately above was a row of sandstones, resting, as was usual throughout the barrow, upon a thin layer of burnt wood. At this spot the barrow appeared to have been opened after its final formation, as if for the purpose of a subsequent interment, and filled up, not with the earth of which the remainder was formed, but with loose chalk, there being no stones or flints above those which lay immediately upon the deposit. At the extreme south of these cists was a large sandstone, three feet in diameter by sixteen inches in thickness, placed edgeways. The above-mentioned cists were circular.
Upright urn outside of cists
“A few inches west of the cist described as containing an urn, was the lower half of another, measuring in diameter five and a half inches, inverted, and placed upon the floor of the barrow, without any protection, merely surrounded by a thin layer of ashes and then the solid earth. It was filled with ashes and burnt bones, and rested upon the parts of a broken skull. Near this was an urn, also unprotected, and consequently much injured by the spade. It was placed upright, and measured in diameter nine and a half inches, by about ten inches in height. In form it resembled the urn first described, marked with impressed dots, but it was without any ornament. A short distance from these was a deposit of burnt wood at the west side of a large flat stone, placed edgeways, which measured three feet four inches by two feet ten inches, and thirteen inches in thickness. From its appearance it would seem that the fire had been lighted by its side. Immediately beneath the edge of this cist, and resting upon the chalk, was a small urn inverted, and by its side some small human bones. It was wholly unprotected, and unfortunately destroyed. South-east of this was a cist sixteen by twelve inches in diameter, and eighteen inches in depth, containing ashes and a few burnt bones, with a large-sized human tooth. Close to the edge of this cist, upon its western side, was placed in an upright position, a large stone measuring in diameter three by two and a half feet; and leaning against it another of still larger dimensions, inclining towards the north. This measured six and a half by four feet, and fifteen inches in thickness. About three feet further east were two large stones set edgeways, and meeting at their tops. Beneath them was the skeleton of a small child with the legs drawn up, lying from west to east. At the north-west side of the barrow, about five feet within the wall, was a cist cut in the solid chalk, measuring sixteen inches in diameter by sixteen in depth; it contained an urn inverted, and filled with burnt bones. Though carefully bandaged, it fell to pieces upon removal, being of more brittle material than any previously discovered. The clay of which it is formed is mixed with a quantity of very small white particles, having the appearance of pounded quartz. It measured in height nine inches by nine and a half in diameter, and is ornamented by six rows of circular impressions made with the end of a round stick or bone of a quarter of an inch in diameter. The cist was filled up with ashes.
Small cup-like urn
“A few inches from this was a cist differing in form, being wider at the top than beneath, in diameter eighteen inches by eighteen in depth; a flat stone was placed over it. It contained the skeleton of a young child, laid across, with the legs bent downwards. Lying close to the ribs was a small elegantly-shaped urn, measuring four inches in height by four in diameter, and made of rather a dark clay. It is ornamented with a row of small circular impressions, similar to those mentioned in the last instance, close to the lip, which turns rather out: beneath is a row of perpendicular scratches, and then two rows of chevrons, also perpendicular. At the feet of the skeleton was a peculiarly small cup, measuring in height one and a half inches by two and a quarter in diameter. It is ornamented with two rows of pricked holes near the top, beneath which is a row of impressions, made probably with an instrument of flat bone, three-eighths of an inch in width, slightly grooved across the end. The same pattern is at the bottom and upon the rim.
Another cup-like vessel
“Near this, towards the south-west, was a deposit of burnt wood, situated above the floor of the barrow, and immediately beneath it were two cists. In one of these, which measured two feet in diameter by one and a half in depth, were a few unburnt bones and several pieces of broken pottery, with a small cup, ornamented with three rows of the zigzag pattern, betwixt each of which, as well as upon the edge, is a row of pricked holes, and at the bottom a row of scratches. It measured in height two and a half inches by three in diameter, and had two small handles pierced horizontally: there appeared to have been originally four. In the other, which measured two feet in diameter by one in depth, were a few unburnt bones and a small urn placed with the mouth upwards, measuring four and three-quarter inches in height by the same in diameter. The lip, which turned very much out, is ornamented with a row of scratches, both within and upon its edge, a similar row also passes round near its centre. Close upon the edge of this cist was another urn of similar dimensions, inverted, and embedded in the solid earth without any protection. It is of much ruder workmanship than any of the others, and wholly unornamented, measuring five inches in height by five in diameter. Both these urns inclined equally towards the south-east. These last cists were partly, if not quite, surrounded by large sandstones set edgeways, and smaller ones built upon them, forming as it would seem a dome over the interments, filled with earth, and reaching to the surface of the barrow, where these stones have been occasionally ploughed out. From this circumstance, as well as the general appearance of the excavation, added to the description given by the labourer of the other part of the barrow, I am induced to suspect such to have been the case throughout… I found many pieces of broken pottery, and a part of a highly-ornamented urn. There was a total absence of any kind of arms or ornaments. The labourer however shewed me a round piece of thin brass, which he had found amongst the flints within the wall, measuring an inch and five-eighths in diameter. It had two minute holes near the circumference. It was probably attached to some part of the dress as an ornament. Teeth of horses and sheep were of frequent occurrence; I also found some large vertebrae and the tusk of a boar. Upon one of the large stones was a quantity of a white substance like cement, of so hard a nature that it was with difficulty I could break off a portion with an iron bar.
“If I offered a conjecture upon its formation, I should say that the wall, and foot of the barrow, which is of chalk, were first made, and the area kept as a family burying-place. The interments, as above described, were placed at different intervals of time, covered with earth (not chalk) or flints, and protected by stones. And over the whole, at a later period, the barrow itself was probably formed. My reason for this opinion is, first, that all these deposits, including, as they do, the skeletons of three or four infants, could scarcely have been made at the same time. And in the second place there was not the slightest appearance (with one exception) of displacement of the stones or flints in any way. As these circumstances then would suggest that the interments were formed at various periods, so the general appearance leaves no doubt as to the superstructure of flints, and surface or form of the barrow itself having been made at the same time and not piecemeal.
“I have met with no instance of a British barrow containing any appearance of a wall having surrounded the interments. Pausanias, in speaking of a monument of Auge, the daughter of Aleus king of Arcadia, in Pergamus, which is above the river Caicus, says, ‘ this tomb is a heap of earth surrounded with a wall of stone.’ And in the Saxon poem, ‘Beowulf,’ mention is made of a similar wall as surrounding the tomb of a warrior.”
One of the stones inside here was later found to possess “carvings of five cupmarks, two bronze daggers and two flat, triangular axes of early Breton type,” (Burl 1987) which Austen didn’t seem to notice at the time of his investigation. A profile of the Badbury Barrow carving can be found here.
Folklore
In Peter Knight’s (1996) survey of megalithic sites around Dorset, he includes the Badbury Barrow along a ley line that begins at the tumulus just below (south) Buzbury Rings and then travels ESE for about 5 miles until ending at another tumulus at ST 006 996.
References:
Austen, John H., “Archaeological Intelligence,” in Archaeological Journal, volume 3, 1846.
Burl, Aubrey, The Stonehenge People, Guild: London 1987.
Grinsell, Leslie V., Dorset Barrows, Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society 1959.
Knight, Peter, Ancient Stones of Dorset, Power: Ferndown 1996.
Piggott, Stuart, “The Badbury Barrow, Dorset, and its Carved Stone,” in The Antiquaries, volume 19, 1939.
Royal Commission on Historical Monuments, England, An Inventory of the Historical Monuments in the County of Dorset – Volume 5: East Dorset, HMSO: London 1975.
Stone, J.F.S., Wessex Before the Celts, Thames & Hudson: London 1958.
Warne, Charles, The Celtic Tumuli of Dorset, John Russell Smith: London 1866.
Although ascribed as a wooden ‘henge’ by archaeologist Jean Cook, the site is more accurately a simple timber circle. Cook (1985) described this little-known “Wood Henge” monument, as she called it, sat inside the lower southeastern end of the impressive Dorchester Cursus monument. The site was obviously of some ritual importance, for a variety of reasons. It was excavated in 1981 and,
“it consisted of a ring of large pits enclosing an area some 18m in diameter. The site was situated along the central axis of the (Dorchester) cursus, presumably influenced by the alignment. The pits, which varied in size, had each contained a wooden post, in three instances consisting of an entire trunk of an oak tree. All the posts were burnt in situ, presumably during some form of destruction ceremony.”
Groundplan of site
When Alex Gibson came here a few years afterwards to re-examine the site, his work and that of Richard Bradley (1988) also found the place to have been an elliptical ‘ring’ of once-upright timber posts. Although Gibson (1998) later gave a confused version of where the site actually was (wrong grid-refs), his brief description gave us an outline of what was once here:
“An oval of 12 postholes containing the carbonized remains of 13 posts which had been burnt prior to the placing of cremations in the upper fills of the postholes. The SW posthole contained the remains of two posts in the same socket. There is a possible entranceway, marked by a wider gap between posts, in the NW.”
But this last line appears to be pure speculation. I’ve not read the longer archaeological accounts of this ‘wood henge’ and adjacent sites (Bradley & Chambers, 1988; Gibson 1992), which should give greater details about the site as a whole. The Pastscape site gives the following information:
“A pit circle comprising a sub-circular arrangement of 12 pits was excavated in the early 1980s in advance of work on the Dorchester by-pass. The site lay within the Dorchester Cursus (SU 59 NE 5), circa 400 metres northwest of its southeastern terminal. The long axis of the pit circle was the same as that of the cursus. Each of the pits had held a timber upright, and some if not all had been burnt in situ. An air photograph of the site had suggested the presence of a central pit but this feature proved to be a natural pocket of sand. Six deposits of cremated bone came from various post pipes. Other finds included a handful of potsherds, one possibly of Early Bronze Age date, some animal bone fragments, and a few flints. Radiocarbon dates from cremated bone and charcoal centred on the mid 3rd millennium BC, with one slightly later.”
References:
Bradley, R. & Chambers, R., “A New Study of the Cursus Complex at Dorchester-on-Thames, in Oxford Journal of Archaeology, volume 7, 1988.
Cook, Jean, “The Earliest Evidence,” in Dorchester through the Ages, Oxford University 1985.
Cook, Jean & Rowley, Trevor (eds.), Dorchester through the Ages, Oxford University 1985.
Gibson, Alex, “Possible Timber Circles at Dorchester-on-Thames,” in Oxford Journal of Archaeology, volume 11, 1992.
Gibson, Alex, Stonehenge and Timber Circles, Tempus: Stroud 1998.
Pennick, Nigel & Devereux, Paul, Lines on the Landscape, Hale: London 1989.
Either reach this from Dorchester’s Dyke Hills by crossing the bridge over the Thames at its southwestern side and walk thru the village and up the fields to the wooded rise on your left; or simply get take the road between Brightwell-cum-Sotwell to the delightful village of Little Wittenham and, on your right-hand side, notes the unmissable clump of trees and rise in the fields on your right. That’s the place!
Archaeology & History
Major Allen’s 1932 photo
To be found on the southern side of the River Thames, across from the huge Dyke Hills camp, this prominent enclosed hillfort was thought to be a place where the tribal peoples of differing groups converged — the Dubonni, the Catuvellauni, and Atrebates peoples. And to this day it remains impressive. Long thought to have been merely the province of Iron Age settlers, in more recent years it has shown to have had a longer and richer history than academics previously dare write about. In Jean Cook’s (1985) fine work on the archaeology of the region, she described the typical narrative Castle Hill elicited from professionals until only a few years back, saying:
“The hillfort on Wittenham Clumps covers approximately 4 hectares (c. 10 acres) and comprises a single ditch and rampart. It commands superb views northwards up the Thames valley and to the south and west across the Vale of White Horse to the Berkshire Downs, where a series of similar hillforts follows the line of an ancient route — the Ridgeway. The fort has never been excavated, although frequent past ploughings have produced Iron Age and early Saxon sherds as well as Romano-British pottery. However, to the south of the hillfort…a well-stratified Iron Age settlement was found. It seems probable on the basis of other excavated sites that the fort was permanently occupied. It would have developed as a regional administrative and political centre, with specialist craftsmen and traders and would have performed some of the same functions as a medieval market town.”
Although Cook’s latter remarks should be addressed with caution (market economics was far from the mythic perspectives of Iron Age people), this great site was of obvious importance. But later excavations at the site in 2002-03 showed that the site had in fact been used by neolithic people and, around the tops, flints and other remains were found that took human activity here back into mesolithic times, with some finds dated around 6000 BC! More surprisingly (to archaeologists anyway) was that Castle Hill continued to be used way into medieval times!
Thankfully much of this place is still pretty well-preserved and is well worth exploring to historians, pagans and walkers.
References:
Cook, Jean, “Before the Roman Conquest,” in Dorchester through the Ages, Oxford University 1985.
Cook, Jean & Rowley, Trevor (eds.), Dorchester through the Ages, Oxford University 1985.
Easy to find. From Dorchester town centre, take the road at the bottom of town where the church is and walk along to the end where a footpath takes you into the field. Once here you’ll note a rise in the land at the end, stretching away to the west and the River Thames. That’s your Dyke Hills!
Archaeology & History
Plan of Dyke Hills (after Cook, 1985)
This site is another example of the considerable neglect shown to the prehistoric archaeological remains in and around the Dorchester region, despite Jean Cook (1985) describing the place as “a site of major local, regional and national importance.” Which is a pity, as the site here was once huge and it seems that much could have been learned from here. (you’ve gotta ask: do those doods who allegedly work for English Heritage care more for the ancient sites, or the money their organization gets?)
Lane-Fox’s 1870 survey
It would seem that the majority of the site was Iron Age in nature, with snifflings of Bronze Age remains scattered here and there. The primary position of the massive dykes and construction of internal domestic structures immediately below (south) of the dykes, was hemmed in on all sides by the surrounding River Thames and one of its tributaries, giving the place an excellent position in terms of food, plus shelter and protection from any intrusive tribes or hungry winter animals.
The first excavation at the huge dykes that define the northern edge of this ‘monument’ was done in 1870 by the renowned General Pitt-Rivers, then later Colonel Lane-Fox (at the time the Secretary of London’s Ethnological Society), as they were very concerned about the damage that was being inflicted upon the site, when the local landowner allowed sections of the banking to be “reduced for cultivation.” An article in the Saturday Review magazine on July 2, 1870, told of these concerns and what was written — as Jean Cook so rightly tells — “has a depressingly modern ring to it”:
“…the fortress at Dorchester and the fortress on Sinodun (Castle Hill) are among the most speaking monuments of the earliest history of our island, and till lately they were among its most perfect monuments. But it is a grievous truth that while we are writing, the dykes at Dorchester are being levelled. Hitherto the neighbourhood ground has been grazed and the harmless sheep is no foe to history; but it has lately occurred to the owner of the ground hat a few shillings more of yearly profit might be gained by turning pasture land into arable; and to such a sordid motive as this these precious antiquities are at this very moment being sacrificed. At least a third of the dyke has already been lowered, and will gradually be utterly destroyed beneath the yearly passage of ruin’s merciless plough share. Such wanton destruction naturally aroused the indignation of men of taste and knowledge, especially in the neighbouring University. A vigourous appeal to the owner to stay his hand was made by some of the most eminent Oxford residents, and an attempt was made to call public attention to the subject by describing the state of the case in various newspapers…”
Lane-Fox’s 1872 photo
But the digging into the dykes continued. For some time at least — until Colonel Lane-Fox himself went to the see the landowner and “persuaded” him to stop what he was doing. A method we should always keep in mind ourselves…
The modern state of the Dyke Hills is summarised once again in Jean Cook’s (1985) fine survey of the region, where she wrote:
“This great enclosure, known to archaeologists as an oppidum, covered 46 hectares (c. 114 acres) and as defended by a massive double bank and ditch to the north and to the east. The southern and western boundaries have all but disappeared, but can be traced in lines of modern field boundaries beyond which the Thames forms a natural boundary. The interior is (now) empty, but cropmarks reveal that it is full of enclosures, pits and circular houses aligned along a regular pattern of internal roads. Although there has been no scientific excavation within Dyke Hills, ploughing of the site has produced one of the densest concentrations of Iron Age coins in Britain.”
It would appear that this site was of considerable importance for local tribes and would have been home to powerful chiefs and impressive-looking shamans! The large Castle Hill site immediately across the river would have had obvious links to this once-omportant prehistoric settlement.
References:
Cook, Jean, “Before the Roman Conquest,” in Dorchester through the Ages, Oxford University 1985.
Cook, Jean & Rowley, Trevor (eds.), Dorchester through the Ages, Oxford University 1985.
Williams, Geoffrey, The Iron Age Hillforts of England, Horace Books 1993.
Very close to the once impressive Dorchester Cursus, this double-ringed prehistoric monument can no longer be seen thanks to the self-righteous arrogance of modern industrialists who care little for the ancestral monuments of the British people, destroying all traces of the site — an activity which, in this case, astonishingly started in more ancient times, as Jean Cook (1985) told: “The banks and the ditches had been levelled through agricultural activity, possibly in the Iron Age”!
Big Rings ground-plan1938 photo of the Big Rings, by Major George Allen
The destruction of this environment continues to this day, destroying many important archaeological remains with little care. Thankfully we we’ve got a good account of the site due to the archaeological excavations of R.J.C. Atkinson (1951) and his team in the late-1940s, from whom Cook and just about everyone else gets most of their data regarding the site.
The Big Rings Henge was probably built sometime in the middle of the second millenium BC. It was an important prehistoric ritual site and, most likely, had some relevance to the adjacent cursus monument. A number of important mortuary and ritual sites were also built close to the site over a period of nearly two thousand years, showing the importance this landscape had to our ancestors.
Jean Cook (1985) described the Big Rings henge as follows:
“The ditches, of which there were two, had opposed entrances on the NNW and SSE. They were about 7.6m wide and 1.8m deep with flat bottoms. Originally there seems to have been a broad low bank on the inner side of each ditch. The southern entrance incorporated an existing monument, consisting of a ring ditch which enclosed a large four-post setting and contained a cremation and a stone axe. Just outside the north entrance was a round barrow, containing a central oval burial pit which produced a crouched inhumation, together with a well-preserved beaker, two small copper or bronze knives and a rectangular wrist-guard of greenstone. The Big Rings ditches themselves contained pottery belonging to the middle or late Beaker period. Although the area within the ditches was trenched, there was no evidence of internal timber structures.”
References:
Atkinson, R.J.C., “The Henge Monuments of Great Britain,” in Atkinson, Piggott & Sandars’ Excavations at Dorchester, Oxon (Department of Antiquities: Oxford 1951).
Atkinson, R.J.C., Piggott, C.M. & Sandars, N.K., Excavations at Dorchester, Oxon, Department of Antiquities: Oxford 1951.
Cook, Jean, “The Earliest Evidence,” in Dorchester through the Ages, Oxford University 1985.
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.
Wainwright, Geoffrey J., The Henge Monuments: Ceremony and Society in Prehistoric Britain, Thames & Hudson: London 1989.
