Chapter One Topography and Geology The area of the Pennines Huddersfield rests upon is geomorphologically acid ill-drained moors of coal-measures and millstone grit, while the wide valleys floored with glacial drift which dissect the range. Castle Hill forms a plateau (figure. 1) distinctly dominating Almondbury a village a few miles south-east of Huddersfield and six miles from Halifax. (Varley in Harding, 1976: 119 and Rumsby in Haigh, 1992:1) The summit of the hill at 902 feet (275) metres) above sea level, extends to an area of 3.7 hectares (37,000 square metre’s), while being composed of a cap of hard Grenoside sandstone, which acts as a protection for the softer sandstones and shales beneath. If located on an Ordinance Survey map, the National Grid Reference Number for Castle Hill is SE44: 152 140. The hill is 275m above sea level, at its peak in the south-west. In the west going towards the river Holme, it slopes steeply away, but does so less steeply in other directions. Source: WYAS, 2002: Geophysics, Castle Hill, Almondbury, West Yorkshire. Map 1. The location of Castle Hill, Almondbury (circled) within the West Yorkshire locale. Source: After A-Z Huddersfield, 2005. Figure 1. An aerial view of Castle Hill, Almondbury taken from the north east. Source: FromWYAS, 2002: A Short Chronological introduction to the Castle Hill site. Castle Hill is a hilltop site within the Parish of Almondbury, a district of Huddersfield, a large post-Industrial town in the County of West Yorkshire, in North Central England. In a brief outline of the history of this area it can be said that first people to set eyes upon Castle Hill were probably hunter gatherers of the middle Stone Age, (Mesolithic, approximately 10,000 to 7,000 years ago, at around 8,000 to 6,000 B.C). These folk it is thought were camping amongst the forests which at that time covered the land. In the later Stone Age (Neolithic, approximately 5000 years ago, circa 3500 B.C.) and Bronze Age (approximately 4000 years ago, 2000 B.C.) there appears to have been widespread travel or trade along the river valleys connecting the Yorkshire Wolds, the Peak District and the Mersey and Ribble Estuaries. This is shown by finds of various characteristic types of stone and bronze tools in a place far from their points of origin. (Rumsby, 1992: 1) The earliest known settlements were undefended village huts during the late Neolithic (New Stone Age, approximately 5000 - 3500 B.C.) and Bronze Age on this site circa 2100 BC. By 625 BC, during the late Bronze Age to early Iron Age, (2000 BC) there was a small enclosure defended by a single bank. This was enhanced to be an undefended village built over the earlier defences, by 600 BC, at the time of the Iron Age. Still within this period, but at 590 BC the first fort was constructed. This was defended by a single stone and timber rampart. And ditch. Ten years later, in 580 BC the settlement was enlarged. The defences were extended to enclose the whole hill top. A permanent settlement of circular huts was established. Eighty or so later around 460 years BC the rampart was raised and widened and new ramparts added, with the existing annexe added. Further down the slope more banks and ditched were constructed. Approximately two generations later, at circa 430 BC a fire destroyed large areas of the ramparts. This led to the abandonment of the hill fort site. During the Roman occupation, (43 AD to the mid to late 5th century), the Anglo Saxon waves of migration / invasion (circa 500 AD, 6th century) through to the Scandinavian settlement of Northern Britain, (in the 7th century), the site is thought to have remained unoccupied. A new era for Castle Hill unfolded after 1066 with the arrival of the Norman Conquest. In the 1140’s (during the Middle or Dark ages) a castle was constructed. About 1150, King William I granted land around Huddersfield to his military supporter, Ilbert De Laci. This Norman family, Earls of Lincoln and Lords of the Honour of Pontefract and the Manor of Almondbury, would remodel the old hill fort at Almondbury. They would turn it into a central point in the guarding and administrating of their Pennine Estates. Change came to the castle between 1275 and 1300 when it was converted into a hunting lodge. Within a generation or so of this, it was ultimately demolished, around the time of a failed attempt to establish a town or village on the hill. By the Tudor Era (16th century) a beacon was constructed upon the hill as part of a relay network in warning of the invasion of the Spanish Armada, 1588. It was once again used just under a century and a quarter later upon the threat of an invasion by the French during the Napoleonic wars. Regular use once again returned to the site with the building of the first Public House between 1810 and 1812. This was then rebuilt 40 years later in 1852. As a mark of commemoration of Queen Victoria, a 106ft tower was built in 1898. The height of the Jubilee, or Victoria Tower was shortened by around 6 ft to 100ft more than half a century later in 1960 during restoration work after years of neglect. This repair work cost three times the original amount (£3,398 in 1898) spent on the tower’s construction. In the early 21st century, the historic Public House dating from 1852 was demolished in part of a development to renovate it, this modernisation went wrong and the whole structure had to be demolished. The owners of the Pub site were then forced by planning laws to demolish the Pub they had constructed in place of the previous one, as they had breached planning regulations, and a contract agreed in advance to keep an ornamental part of the original building. The above information is summarised overleaf in table 1. A brief note of etymological interest “The ancient British name for the hill may have survived in the name ‘Catterstones”, used for a small group of cottages on the slope of the hill. The first element appears to be the British ‘cater’ or ‘catter’, meaning a hill or even a hill-fort” (Rumsby, 1992: 6). This etymological root, could also be inferred to be related to the French world for castle, ‘Châteaux’, which is if spelt phonetically would be ‘Chatter’. It is possible to suggest the languages share a common Celtic language, with a root word for both ‘Catter’ and ‘Châteaux’ and relating to the Romano- British word for a fortified site, Caester. Tab. 1 Time line summarising the history of Castle Hill, Almondbury Approximate Date Time Period Settlement Type 2100 B.C. Neolithic Undefended village huts 625 B.C. Late Bronze Age Early Iron Age Small enclosure defended by a single bank. 600 B.C. Iron Age Undefended village built over earlier defences 390 B.C. Iron Age First fort: defended by a single stone and timber rampart and ditch. 580 B.C. Iron Age Settlement enlarged: defences extended to enclose the whole hilltop. Permanent settlement of circular huts. 460 B.C. Iron Age Rampart raised and widened and new ramparts added, annexe added. Further banks and ditches built further down the slope. 430 B.C. Iron Age Large areas of ramparts destroyed by fire. Site seemingly “abandoned” for next six centuries. 60 A.D. Roman Hill “uninhabited”. 500 A.D. Anglo Saxon Hill “uninhabited”. 700 A.D. Scandinavian Hill “uninhabited”. 1068 A.D. Norman . William “the Conqueror” grants land around Huddersfield to his comrade in arms, Baron Ilbert De Laci.. 1140 A.D. Norman Site re-inhabited. Castle constructed during the reign of King Stephen. The De Laci’s remodel the old hillfort site into a motte and bailey castle, to guard and administer their Pennine Estates. 1275 -1300 A.D. Middle Ages During the reign of King Edward I, the Castle is converted into a hunting lodge. 1320 A.D. Middle Ages Buildings demolished or “slighted”, after attempt to build a village or town on the hill fails. Failure possibly due to high altitude of the settlement in contrast the village of Almondbury, lower down the valley. 1588 A.D. Tudor Beacon on the hill installed as part of a national relay system, to warn of the impending threat of an invasion by the Spanish Armada. 1702 - 1714 A.D. 1804 - 1814 Modern Beacons on the hill to warn of French and Napoleonic Fleets impending threat. 1810 -1812 A.D. Modern First Public House built there, after the site became a meeting ground for religious and radical thinking groups. 1898 - 1899 A.D. Modern / Victorian Victoria Tower built. Also known as Jubilee Tower and Spooner’s Turret. Source:Tolsom Memorial Museum Exhibtion information board, with additions. Chapter Two Literature Review and Previous Work Varleys’ Work There are several works which make up the “back-bone” of the research about Castle Hill, Almondbury. These are excavation reports of W.J. Varley, 1939 -1972. The main one of these, (of which there are three) “A brief guide to the excavations 1939 - 1972” investigates the prehistoric evidence, found beneath medieval Norman and much later late Iron Age occupation evidence. There are visible earthworks, which total a triple section set of rampart wards. These are attributed to the Norman period, when there was constructed in the 12th century circa 1140 a mottle and bailey castle, with the earth works been shaped on what was originally a less sculptured hill top crest. The historical romanticism which was held in regard before any excavation has now been swept aside, though probably regrettably for those with ideas of former a grandeur for the Castle Hill site. No longer is the site accredited with being the strong hold residence of Parisi of the East Riding modern Humberside area, and dual Brigantian queen Cartimandua, as there is no evidence the site was occupied during the Roman period. Nor is it the site of Camelot or Roman Camulodunum (also written Cambodunum) which was famous for appearing in the World map of Ptolemy during the second century, A.D. as historian William Camden writing in his Magna Britannia in 1586 would have it. The evidence of Varley finds no trace, bar one shard of Roman Pottery (which could have been brought in from else where, or left by passing Roman soldiers) to suggest any long-term Roman occupation of the site. Looking at the layout of the site which from above is oval in shape similar to a half rugby ball or a ship, there are three blocks or “wards” which are separated by deep ditches or “dry moats”. The first ward is in the south west end of the hill, and contained a bailey and the motte of the Norman castle, now occupied by a Victorian Jubilee tower dating from 1898. This is the smallest, yet most intensely fortified. The middle ward is further towards the north west end, and is divided by the two deep parallel ditches, the furthest north of which is now used an entrance coming from the “Hillside” road to access the hill top. The third and final section, traversing to the north east is by far the largest and least documented section, reported to be a former town, now a deserted medieval village. Varley concluded that the site was first occupied around 2150 B.C. Within a short time period after this date the site became less frequently used, before falling ultimately into disuse at a precisely unknown date. It was however reoccupied circa 700 B.C. some 1450 years after its initial occupation during the Iron Age. It is likely the site had been in use long before Varley’s date, but the evidence to suggest this is not available or at the least may have been misinterpreted. The first earthworks were constructed during the late Iron age, 700 B.C. Varley then believes the site was abandoned prior to a period which was most productive, with an expansion of the ramparts and earthworks. This was dated to a 41 year period from 590 B.C. to 431 B.C. The ramparts were of a complex construction including earthwork built of timber, soil and stone. This rock, earth and wood structure would be likely to given considerable stability in defence. After this burst in activity there came a change of pace. There was a break in activity and occupation for one and half thousand years. This bi-millennial hiatus was followed by a fire which consumed a considerable proportion of the defences. The Norman Conquest saw a resurgence of activity at the naturally fortified site, when the earth works were re-sculptured in the 12th century, during the reign of King Stephen. This made good use what had been abandoned almost one and a half millennia previously. A triple ward bailey was constructed, which is likely to be what can still be seen at the present day. There was the attempt the found the town in the 14th century, which ultimately was unsuccessful, leading to the deserted medieval village and the markings of which can be observed in the present period. This town was abandoned around 1340. Petch’s Work The writings of Petch are only very brief, and were written at a time (1920’s) when scientific dating methods had not yet been developed. The information is somewhat reliant on historical texts and muddled facts (such as the Honley hoard of Roman coins which were said to come from Almondbury, discovered in 1829, but which actually came from elsewhere, Lightcliffe been the most likely place). Much of Petch’s work is now out of date having been influenced by the flight of fancy that was the story of Brigantian occupation of the site at the time of Romans, which was disproved by Varley in 1972. Sites and Monuments Records There are at least 15 places neighbouring Almondbury in various districts of Huddersfield which are recorded to have at least one monument dating to either the Bronze or Iron ages. These can be used to determine the patterns of settlement in the vicinity of Almondbury during prehistoric era. Further to this there are a great many more recorded finds of flint debitage; arrowheads, flakes, mace-heads, axes, spear points, a scraper and microliths all dating to the Neolithic period. The monuments within the vicinity are also quite vast and varied. These include: rectangular enclosures (at Fixby), a bronze age (suspected) stone circle (at Golcar), an earthwork bank, a Bronze Age and iron cairn cemetery, hut circle, ring-banks, (at Honley), a Bronze Age barrow and a cairn (at South Crosland), a Bronze Age cairn cemetery and Bronze and Iron Age settlement (at Thurstonland), and a crop-mark of a sub- circular enclosure (at Almondbury). The above records of finds and monuments can tell us a lot of information about the activities of settlement in the area of Almondbury and the further locality during the Bronze and Iron Ages. There is also a small number of flint finds from the earlier period of the Neolithic, with a degree of overlap into the Bronze Age. Works investigating Iron Age societies There are various other works which deal with a similar, broader range of prehistoric which can be seen as back ground material to use further aid the investigation: Gill Ferrel wrote about social archaeology in her 1997 paper “space and society in the Iron Age of north east England”. This can be used to familiarise Almondbury with other sites which were existing around the same time in regions not too far away. Adrian Chadwick writes in “Digging Ditches, but missing riches?...” about the division of land within the first millennium B.C. up to the 4th and 5th century A.D. His work demonstrates landscape existence, challenging existing ideas about Iron Age (and Romano-British) societies. Other miscellaneous works It is likely that of all the work gathered for research there will be a lot more which is missed or unavailable or simply not known about. However there is a body of other literature which is available, yet does not relate entirely to the period under study. It does however relate to the site of Almondbury. Several of these are newspaper cuttings from the beginning of the 20th century onwards, often referring to the use of beacons on the hill in times of threatened invasion and the Jubilee tower on the Castle Hill at various stages in its continuation. It would seem of little point to list them all at this stage, as they do not shed light on the period of our concern. They also regurgitate very basic “laymen’s” information about the site, much of which is relating to flights of fancy: the myths and legends, children’s and fairy stories about Castle Hill. West Yorkshire Archive Service Geophysics 2002 As recently as 2002, the WYAS have done a geophysical evaluation of the site of Castle Hill. This was done to add to what is already known about the site. This enhancement of the archaeological record was carried out within the area of the fortifications and the annexe area which is north easterly to the area described as the third ward earlier within this writing. Archaeological significance or potential of this study The scope this examination has for the future of archaeology is of limited potential. It can only draw conclusions from text materials, which have limitations due to their nature of being accounts written by individuals influenced by pre-determined notions. Only hard excavation with re-worked dating methods can actually achieve a more thorough idea of the pre-history of the site. It would be sufficient to re-evaluate the work of Varley with more modern dating techniques. Reanalysis or taking new samples from a new excavation would perhaps help to gain further knowledge about the pre-historic occupation of the site, and perhaps more excavation at other related sites further down the hill. A list of these can be obtained from the SMR. Examples at hand would include Honley, near to Almondbury where there is a considerable number of cairns and some bank earthworks. It was suggested in 1963 by the Huddersfield Archaeological Society to excavate here,, but this was never carried out. (WYAS Sites and Monuments Records). With consideration for achieving new dates for the work of Varley, more excavation could be done at the site, in the many area’s left untouched by previous fieldwork. These may hold a key to much ancient occupation. The dating done in the past may be flawed due to unsophisticated carbon 14 techniques. This may be due a review in the future if considered appropriate. Hillfort’s in the region Within the region of this part of northern England, there are a number of recognised (as well as some disputed) hill-forts. Three of these are known in West Yorkshire, while there are others in South Yorkshire and North Yorkshire. In addition to these there are more lying further north, west and south which eventually develop into a vast network of fortified farm stead enclosures or hill-forts spanning the length and breadth of the nation. The West Yorkshire three are described thus: Castle Hill (Almondbury) & Previous Work A timber-laced construction with vitrified ramparts, Almondbury covers a large area of 3.2 hectares or 8 acres, in shape an elongated oval. It is ranked due to its enormity as the major hill fort in the county of West Yorkshire. Obscure in origin its original settlement is believed to date back to at least the Bronze Age, some 4,000 to 5,000 years before the present. The Neolithic period has been suggested as a convenient first settlement point, due to evidence of a third millennium B.C. date for a horizon below the earliest defences. The initial construction of the fort however lacks any dating evidence; however a transitional Late Bronze Age – Iron Age date is a possible suggestion. There is a stone-revetted rampart, with a timber-laced core, which according to excavator W.J. Varley has a date of around the sixth century B.C. placed in Varley’s Period III. The rampart is believed to date at least to the seventh century B.C if not earlier, and is defined in Varley’s Period II. Excavated intermittently by Varley pre and post war, 1936 -9 then decades later 1969 -72 and 1972 when Varley tragically and suddenly died, Almondbury has for a lengthy time been perceived as an site of significance in the field of Iron Age studies. In addition its place in history was greatly exasperated by some optimistic scholars, in thinking the site was of great magnitude. On this they (Camden & Whitaker) believed it to be the site of Camulodunum of the Ravenna Cosmography, and the base of Briganitan tribal chief Queen Cartimandua, who would betray southern king Caratacus. This theory was found implausible through the excavations of Varley. The findings of his work suggest a break in occupation between the fourth century B.C. and the re-occupation of the hill-top leading up the Norman Conquest, during the Anglian era. There is a parallel to drawn between Almondbury and some other hill-forts in the North of England. These are the vitrified (heavily fired, for extra strength of the defences) Castercliff and Skelmore Head which can be found in Lancashire, and at the site of Mam Tor in Derbyshire. The outer defences of these hill forts were fired and destroyed. Possibly accidental, or perhaps deliberately as a means of gaining extra strength through vitrification. This question is asked in more detail further into this dissertation. It is said there were three major phases of building activity during prehistory at Almondbury despite Varley concluding there to be several phases in his reappraisal of the stratigraphy there. These major sequences of construction activity seemingly took place through: A ramparted enclosure was built within the earliest phase. This was surrounded by a ditch, hewn from the bedrock. This was located on the highest part of the ridge, at the south western end of the hilltop. Later a sizeable redevelopment was put into action as the entire hill top was enclosed. This higher scale enclosure was built using a rampart placed on a basal raft, constructed from timber planks, Laid out horizontally and large upright stone revetments. Figure 2 taken from a Hampshire local government internet publication on Danebury shows an artists view of the structure of a rampart and how it may have been used for defence. The ramparts at Almondbury were found to be constructed in a similar way, with a timber frame interior, filled with clay, stone and covered in earth. (Varley, 1973: 17) Circular huts were then built behind the windbreak microclimate defence of the rampart wall. (Varley, 1973, 14). Figure 2. An artist’s impression of a Hill-fort bank and ditch defence system, with circular huts. Source: From Danebury Trust. http://www.gallica.co.uk/celts/ditch.htm consulted 9/11/05 Latterly the entire site was developed. This reconstructive phase saw a rampart revetted with a dry stone walling being added to the earlier one. During this stage of the building, the burning of the rampart occurred. This is said to be devastating, but as hinted at earlier, this supposed devastation may well have been absolutely deliberate, to fortify the rampart bank. There is no dispute that burning occurred, as radio carbon dates pointing towards the fifth and sixth centuries B.C. from oak timbers show fire activity at the site of this uppermost rampart. Further to this, the addition of multi-vallations, expected to have been installed during Varley’s phase III at the lower gradient, less well defended eastern side is indicative of deliberate efforts being carried out to fortify the site against potential threats, Figure 3. This intense burning, believed to have occurred initially from the exterior of the rampart is still debatable whether it was caused by accident or occurred through attack. The view of the West Yorkshire Archaeological Survey would have it that the latter is more plausible, though it does leave open the remark that “it seems more probable that the ramparts were set alight from the outside, although this problem remains unresolved”, which realistically keeps the debate of accidental or deliberate burning verses deliberate vitrification afloat. Figure 3. Plan of Castle Hill showing outer ditches and lines of building phases. Source: From Varley in Hogg, 1975. Barwick in Elmet Used during the Norman, and earlier Saxon era as a centre of administration, the hub of the Northumbrian Kingdom of Elmet, Barwick now consists of an earthwork within a 6.1 hectare site (61,000 square metres). Within it there are two enclosures, both semicircular in shape rounded in dimension. One lies towards the south on Tower Hill (SE 3983 3749) while the other lies to the north on Wendel Hill (SE 3989 3769). Its use during the medieval period was somewhat damaged, if not obscured the original prehistoric hill fort. Despite this rambunctious use medieval of the hill fort site there still are substantial remains of a bank and ditch. These can be found on the northern and western sides of the earthwork South Kirkby This is a small hill fort in comparison to the two mentioned above. Covering an area measuring just 1.8 hectares (18,000 square metres), it is naturally defended northerly and southerly. Partially excavated in 1949, it was decided that the site was a Brigantian hill-fort under the guidance of F. Atkinson, director of Wakefield Museum. Pieces of decayed and burnt sandstone and medieval pottery shards were the only artefacts found during excavation. Due to the earthwork being ploughed out to a severely low level it is now thought extremely difficult to visualise a fort here. However the site is well positioned, with evidence from infra-red aerial photographs showing traces of a five sided north-west annexe. In addition to this the line of the ploughed-out rampart to the south-west and a possible defended southerly entrance are visible. These aerial photographs also show an additional enclosure to the east of the fort. In addition to the three hill-forts mentioned above, it is deemed valid by the author to include references to other hill-forts in the wider vicinity which in a local to regional context are likely to have been part of a further network in forts throughout the north of England. Castleberg (Nesfield) Lying Just outside of the West Yorkshire county boundary, at Grid Reference SE 0925 4946 this promontory fort is located on a spur of land is in a naturally well defended to the east and west. Looking towards the southern side there are visible traces of a defensive rampart. It was written by Historian Joseph Whitaker during the 19th century that “at a small distance outside the enclosure Castleberg an urn, and as such, is tentative evidence for the occupation of Castlelberg during the Bronze Age. Castle Hill (Wentbridge) The site of this Hill-fort at Wentbridge, though outside the West Yorkshire county boundary still holds relevance to the Iron Age period. Here at Castle Hill, there is a promontory positioned hill top ideal for use as a fort. However there is a distinct lack of earthwork evidence to suggest a fort. The nature of the site, being on a belt of Magnesium Limestone high up and flat topped, gives rise to the expectation that the area would have been inhabited by prehistoric communities for fortification and as a refuge in times of heavy flooding. Situated on a strategic spur of land to the south of the river Went, evidence on the ground at Wentbridge presents a basic enclosure with a possible annexe to the site. Quarrying activity has obliterated a bank enclosing the earthworks western end, show on sheet 250 of 1st edition 6 inch ordnance survey map. It was suggested by the O.S. that the site may have been a fortied enclosure during the Iron Age. Northwards and westwards of Castle Hill, reaching as far as Darrington there have been identified by from cropmarks, several enclosures, predominantly of a circular shape. The nearest cropmarks to the fort are to be found to the south-east of the river Went, some of which may be the remains of satellite earthworks which were linked to the fort through a relationship of dependency. The above descriptions of Hill-forts are based on information from Moorhouse, 1981: 115-117. Mam Tor Thought outside of the region, this hill fort is still important as a large site in part of a wider network of hill-top fortifications in the central northern Britain. Enclosing 64,000 square metres (6.4 hectares) with two entrances poled at the north and south Mam Tor was built at a height considered unusually high and contains the traces of several huts. When excavated these surrendered secrets of an abundance of pottery and charcoal which would yield a “surprisingly early radio carbon date”. (Hogg, 1975: 247). This pottery is “rough and almost all undecorated” (Hogg, 1975: 247). Characteristically it is consistent with the two radio carbon dates of the charcoal. These show an occupation date of the Late Bronze Age or earlier still the late Mesolithic, about the 10th to 12th centuries B.C. Defended by a slightly interned single dump or univalleted rampart, partially revetted by a stone wall this fort is also accompanied by a ditch and what is considered to be a counterscarp bank. The hut dwellings were constructed from timber and were probably round and set on artificially terraced level platforms in the hillside. Unfortunately erosion has destroyed the lower down built-up half Chapter Three Sites and Monuments Record The data presented in the following chapter has been taken from the sites and monuments record office in Wakefield, West Yorkshire. It was accessed during the winter of 2005-06. The maps have been copied from a 1958 ordnance survey map (SE 11 SE) and then digitally altered to plot the information about sites and finds contained in the SMR. Using this plotting technique it was hoped to show any correlation between prehistoric, Bronze Age and Iron Age sites and finds and their relationship or significance in relation to the location of Castle Hill. The original map was scanned digitally, and had to be divided into four quarters due to its overwhelming size. On each quarter there is some degree of overlap between that one and the next quarter. The tables are arranged so that there is one table for the sites of the SMR, one table for the finds of the SMR and one quarter of map SE 11 SE of the Huddersfield area. This arrangement is repeated for each map quarter. On each map the sites have been colour coded and labelled according to their interpretation, e.g. a Bronze Age barrow will be marked as an orange dot representing Bronze Age, with a brown coloured letter B to denote a Barrow. No others sites will have the same letter, and all the letters are colour coded too. If another site begins with the same letter, e.g. a Bank, then the first and second letter of the word is used, and is in a different colour such as green. This method of labelling is designed to easily differentiate between one type of site and another and one age from another at a glance. Tab. 2 Table showing S.M.R. data of known Bronze & Iron Age sites within the District of Huddersfield (C) P.R.N. Grid Ref’ence Township Site Type Period 2314 SE 128 188 Fixby, Lindley Cum Quarmby Rectangular Enclosure Uncertain A 3904 SE 121 197 Fixby Unassigned Barrow Uncertain Uncertain A 4056 SE 1021 1578 Golcar Stone Circle Bronze Age 7 SE 1244 1204 Honley Bank (Earthwork) Cairn Cemetery Cairn Cemetery Uncertain Bronze Age Uncertain 8 SE 1493 1046 Honley Hut Circle Ringbank Bank (Earthwork) Cairn Cemetery Cairn Cemetery Ring Bank Bank (Earthwork) Hut Circle Cairnfield Bronze Age Bronze Age Bronze Age Bronze Age Iron Age Iron Age Iron Age Iron Age Uncertain 9 SE 1190 1092 Honley Bank (Earthwork) Cairn Cemetery Ring Bank Bank (Earthwork) Cairn Cemetery Ring Bank Cairnfield Bronze Age Bronze Age Bronze Age Iron Age Iron Age Iron Age Uncertain 13 SE 1225 1408 South Crosland Culvilinear Enclosure Culvilinear Enclosure Uncertain Uncertain 1334 SE 104 124 South Crosland Barrow Bronze Age 5203 SE 135 129 South Crosland Almondbury Cairn Clearance Cairn Bronze Age Uncertain 1043 SE 188 121 Thurstonland Cairn Cemetery Settlement Cairnfield Bronze Age Bronze Age Iron Age Uncertain A 3841 SE 159 143 Almondbury Unassigned Hollow Way Uncertain Uncertain 4803 SE 163 139 Almondbury Circular Enclosure Circular Enclosure Uncertain A Uncertain A 4806 SE 198 142 Lepton Ditch Uncertain 4807 SE 197 144 Lepton Dirch Circular Enclosure Ditch Uncertain Uncertain A 5769 178 136 Farnley Tyas Unassigned Uncertain Source: Sites and Monuments Records Database. Cited 07/12/05 Tab. 3 Table showing S.M.R. data of known Bronze & Iron Age finds within the District of Huddersfield (C) P.R.N. Grid Ref’ence Township Find Type Period 1190 SE 120 154 Lockwood Flint Uncertain A 2131 SE 1323 1987 Fixby Axe, Flint Arrowhead Neolithic Neolithic 3916 SE 141 186 Huddersfield Arrowhead Bronze Age 4052 SE 13 19 Fixby Spear Uncertain A 5842 SE 1 1 Huddersfield Microlith Mesolithic 14 SE 198 153 Lepton Flint Arrowhead Flint Bronze Age Uncertain A 16 SE 175 188 Kirkheaton Knife Bronze Age 17 SE 175 190 Kirkheaton Flint Uncertain A 18 SE 176 187 Kirkheaton Flint Uncertain A 19 182 189 Kirkheaton Flint Uncertain A 20 182 188 Kirkheaton Flint Uncertain A 1989 SE 17273 1690 Dalton Axe, Stone Neolithic 2002 SE 153 141 Almondbury Axe, Stone Arrowhead Flake Neolithic Bronze Age Uncertain A 3781 SE 15 16 Almondbury Dalton Knife Uncertain A 3782 SE 154 175 Dalton Arrowhead Neolithic 3846 SE 180 195 Kirkheaton Core Knife Flint Uncertain A Uncertain A Uncertain A 3877 SE 17 16 Almondbury Axe Bronze Age 3906 SE 16 17 Dalton Saw Uncertain A 3925 SE 172 185 Dalton Flint Uncertain A 3926 SE 174 184 Kirkheaton Dalton Knife Mesolithic 3927 SE 182 188 Kirkheaton Lithic working site Flint Mesolithic Mesolithic 4030 SE 1834 1214 Thurstonland Scraper Uncertain A Neolithic Bronze Age Bronze Age 4049 SE 169 177 Dalton Macehead Macehead Mesolithic Uncertain A 4185 SE 17 16 Dalton Axe Bronze Age Source: Sites and Monuments Records Database. Cited 07/12/05 Tab. 4 Table showing sites relating to the North Western quarter of Map SE 11 SE (C) P.R.N Grid Ref’ence Site Details or Description 3904 SE 121 197 Unassigned barrow Large tree-covered mound, visible from M62; precise nature and date uncertain, but likely to be of recent origin (trees not particularly mature). WYAS contacted by a Mr Gibson about this mound in 1976; known locally as the ‘grave of the Romans’. Proper ground inspection (WYAS) appraisal) required in first instance. 4056 SE 1021 1578 Stone Circle ‘North Stone Rings’ and ‘South Stone Rings’ are place names on the Golcar Tithe Award Map. These names suggest presence of a prehistoric stone circle or circles; there is no evidence of such on the ground, nor is there any known documentary evidence for such a circle or circles. 2314 SE 128 188 Rectangular Enclosure Ridge and furrow Unassigned This is an earthwork of circular form lying above a small valley called Grimescar Dike. To complete after BY, JM survey. Tab. 5 Table showing find relating to the North Western quarter of Map SE 11 SE (C) P.R.N Grid Ref’ence Find Details or Description 1190 120 154 Flint Translucent grey flint, found by Mr A. Wild of Croft House, 1 Knotty Lane, Lepton, in 1970. Finder record states that implement had a ‘missing tang’ which suggests it might have been an arrowhead. Flint was retained by finder. 2131 1323 1987 Axe, flint Arrowhead A broken unpolished flint axe, found on a footpath in Fixby Park by Mr E. Darby in c. 1931; find spot is precise and was confirmed to O.S. by the finder. The axe is held by Mr. Darby. N.B. A Neolithic leaf-shaped arrowhead (PRN xxx) was found in 1959 by Mr. Darby at the same spot. (if arrowhead not PRNd separately, then add to this record). 2314 SE 128 188 Scraper Found within an earthwork of circular form lying above a small valley called Grimescar Dike. To complete after BY, JM survey. 3916 SE 141 186 Arrowhead Barbed and tanged arrowhead found in allotment gardens in May 1940, Tolson Memorial Museum record card locates the find in Scale Hill Allotments ( at SE 141 186 on 25 map, but given as SE 142 186 on Tolson record card). The source of the grid ref. cited on O.S. card (SE 1441 1859) is unclear. Arrowhead is held by Molson Museum (acc. no A6658). No further information. 3970 SE 1290 1554 Flint Arrowhead Two flints found by J. Rishworth on surface of an unmade road near Basil Street, Crosland Moor at cited grid ref. It is possible that the flints were deposited along with road material brought to the site from elsewhere. One flint is described (see refs. as a fabricator, the other as a broken petit tranchet arrowhead, but this remains uncertain. 4052 SE 13 19 Spear Turner mentions a spearhead found on higher ground near Fixby; nothing else available on this find and it cannot be correlated / substituted with any other find for which more details is available. Figure 3. Key to maps enlarged for clear visibility Map 2. North Western quarter of Map SE 11 SE showing distribution of sites and finds Source: From Ordnance Survey 1958 with additions. Tab. 6 Table showing sites relating to the North Eastern quarter of Map SE 11 SE (C) P.R.N Grid Ref’ence Site Details or Description 3841 SE 159 143 Unassigned Hollow way Site of uncertain date and nature, comprising a series of earthworks described by Mr. D.W Aldridge as levelled earth circles and hollow ways in what he calls Haigh Spring Wood, though the area in which he marks these earthworks is named Mellor Wood on modern O.S. map. 1st ed. 6 O.S. map sheet no. 260 shows Mellor Wood as woodland at c. 1850. Query whether on 1634 Estate Map, this woodland is that area shown planted with trees and called ‘Widow Haigh’s Spring’; the location of the latter appears to be to the south of Mellor Wood (on modern O.S.) and Mr. Aldridge has perhaps equated Mellor Wood with ‘Haigh Spring’. 1634 map also shows field immediately east of last named ’Three Bank Closes’. N.B. Letter from WY Unit of 1/2/1980 told Mr. Aldridge that member of Unit would visit site; no record in SMR that any visit ever occurred. Until field visit takes place, little more can be said on this site; it is possible that the earthworks are quarry spoil and associated trackways. SMR appraisal essential in first instance. 1465 181 149 Rectangular enclosure Ditch Non-antiquity Cropmarks of a possible large rectilinear enclosure, c. 025 ha, with associated external linear ditches. This feature is somewhat obscured by the relative darkness (green-ness) of the crop generally and by numerous narrow marks probably of natural origin (frost cracking?). Geophysical survey may help to confirm or refute interpretation. 4806 SE 198 142 Ditch Cropmarks of one curvilinear ditch of uncertain function and origin. 4807 SE 197 144 Ditch Circular Enclosure Ditch Cropmark of ditch? Forming an arc of a circle (C. 120 degrees), of radius c. 35 m. (diameter c. 70 m). Interpretation of the AP evidence can go no further but this site should certainly be evaluated on the ground if threatened. 5769 SE 178 136 Unassigned Fragmentary cropmarks – nature/origin uncertain – re-appraise. Tab. 7 Table showing finds relating to the North Eastern quarter of Map SE 11 SE (C) P.R.N Grid Ref’ence Find Details or Description 14 SE 198 153 Flint Arrowhead Flint Four burnt flints including a tanged arrowhead found in 1926 cy C.F. Cameron during coal boring. Finds now (1964) held by Tolson Museum, Huddersfield (accession numbers A.7.27 and A.68.58). (Grid ref. cited is to Chapel Hill, not necessarily the precise find spot). 16 SE 175 188 Knife A double-edged flint knife, now in Tolson Museum, Huddersfield; found in early 1960’s by the Rev. L.J. Johnson of 431, Wakefield Road, Huddersfield. 17 SE 175 190 Flint Area of flints (no. and type found not specified). Found by the Rev. L.J. Johnson in early 1960’s. In his possession (431, Wakefield Road, Huddersfield) in 1964). 18 SE 176 187 Flint Area of flints (no. and types not found specified). Found in early 1960’s by Rev. L.J. Johnson, 431, Wakefield Road, Huddersfield and held by him in 1964. 19 SE 182 189 Flint Area of flints (no. and types found not specified) found in early 1960’s by the Rev L.J. Johnson, 431, Wakefield Road, Huddersfield and in his possession in 1964. 20 SE 182 188 Flint Area of flints (no. and types not specified) found in early 1960’s by the Rev L.J. Johnson (431, Wakefield Road, Huddersfield) and in his possession 1964). 2002 SE 153 141 Axe, Stone Arrowhead Flake Almondbury hillfort- flint and stone artefacts comprising: 1). Butt of a polished stone axe found on site 1 during the 1939 excavations of Castle Hill hillfort at Almondbury. Held by Tolson Museum. 2). Flint flakes, possibly a knife. 3). Barbed and tanged arrowhead; found 1937 (acquired by Manaor House Museum, Ilkley, on 30/10/1940; acc. no 27.40). 4). 2 convex scrapers, end scraper, core trimming flake, blade end flake. 1989 SE 17273 1690 Axe: Stone A fragment of a polished stone axe found in January 1957 in the garden of 6, Windsor Drive, Dalton, Huddersfield, by Mr. A Stringer whilst he was digging in his garden. Find spot is exact. Held by Tolson Memorial Museum (acc. no. 33.1.57) and of Langdale type rock. 3781 SE 15 16 Knife Flint knife found in a bed of clay at Turnbridge, near Huddersfield, (grid ref. encompasses Turnbridge; nothing more definite); in Tolson Memorial Museum, Hudderfield (acc no. A.29.58). No further information. 3782 SE 154 175 Arrowhead Leaf shaded arrowhead, probably Neolithic , of translucent brown flint; found at Kilner Bank and presented to Tolson Museum by A. Gardner (the finder?). Acc no. 39.1.65; no further information. 3846 SE 180 195 Core Flint Knife Several flints found at Upper Heaton; small flint core was found in trench XI of medieval pottery kiln (PRN 2717) excavation at U. Heaton; this was given to Tolson Mus. By Rev L.T. Johnson (acc no. 118.14.72). record card also mentions 2 blocks of flint (cores?) found at Ellis’s Farm (query whether this is in Upper Heaton in SE 17 19); these are also innTolson Mus. (acc. no 118.12.72) and a flint knife, possibly also from Ellis’s Farm, but this is unclear from record card. Knife also in Tolson Mus.;no acc. no. given on card. 3877 SE 17 16 Axe Bronze axe reputed to have been found at Dalton, Kirkburton; no further information. 3906 SE 16 17 Saw Flint Flint saw of uncertain date, found at Dalton, Kirkburton; no further information. No better grid ref. and even that cited may be inadequate. 3925 SE 172 185 Flint Flint flake with marginal retouch, found at Dalton Bank, Quarry Edge; donatdd to Museum by Rev L.T. Johnson (the finder?) – acc. no. 118.20.72. 3926 SE 174 184 Knife Mesolithic knife found by Rev. L.T. Johnson on 25/10/1958. Retained by finder who confirmed its approximate find spot to O.S. No further information. 3927 SE 182 188 Lithic working site Flint CBA ref. cites flint found in denudd hill top at 640’ O.D. by Rev. L.T. Johnson. Flints comprised 5 unretouched flakes and blades and one microburin. Tolson Mus. Record card mentions 6 flints found at SE 182 187 (acc no. 118.19.72) which may be the same flints as those referred to by CBA. 4049 SE 169 177 Macehead The record for this find is obscure; the card merely cites the Roe & Radley article mentioned under ‘source type’, but says nothing about the actual find. The alleged macehead is not listed in Roe & Radley, 1968. Source of grid ref. unknown. Further information required….CF. finds of other maceheads in W. Yorks – PRN 3817 (Thornes Rd., Wakefield) ; PRN 4047 (Wortley, Leeds); PRN 4050 (Badger Slacks, Saddleworth; just outside W. Yorks). If genuine, PRN 4049 could date to Mesolithic period, though pebble maceheads are known to have continued into later periods. 4185 SE 17 16 Axe Bronze axe from Dalton, near Huddersfield. No further information. Map 2. North Eastern quarter of Map SE 11 SE showing distribution of sites and finds Source: From Ordnance Survey 1958 with additions. Tab. 8 Table showing sites relating to the South Eastern quarter of Map SE 11 SE (C) P.R.N Grid Ref’ence Site Details or Description 1043 SE 188 121 Cairn Cemetery Settlement Settlement Cairnfield Area of earthworks comprising cairns, banks and probable quarrying remains of more recent (?). Remains first identified by Huddersfield and District Archaeological Society. (HDAS) and reported to WYAS, August 1996. Following this report, site viist took place to appraise remains and to asses any possible threat from felling operations which were taking place in adjacent woodland. Kirklees confirmed on 30.8.1996 that felling had ceased and have been sent details of known remains, in case of further threat from forestry works. The remains so far identified are in Saville Wood, but there is every possibility that they are more extensive and further detailed appraisal is required before any more definitive areas of archaeological concern can be marked on maps; therefore, area currently marked on SMR map (O.S. sheet SE 11 SE) is to be treated as a guide only and does not represent the actual extent of archaeological remains. Further detailed field appraisal will be necessary when ownership details are known. (Kirklees are obtaining details)….. 1465 SE 181 149 Rectangular Enclosure Ditch Non- antiquity Cropmarks of a possible large rectilinear enclosure, c 0.25 ha, with associated external linear ditches. This feature is somewhat obscured by a relative darkness (green-ness) of the crop generally and by numerous narrow mark probably of natural origin (frost cracking?). Geophysical survey may help to confirm or refute interpretation. 3841 SE 159 143 Unassigned Hollow way Site of uncertain date and nature, comprising a series of earthworks described by Mr. D.W Aldridge as levelled earth circles and hollow ways in what he calls Haigh Spring Wood, though the area in which he marks these earthworks is named Mellor Wood on modern O.S. map. 1st ed. 6 O.S. map sheet no. 260 shows Mellor Wood as woodland at c. 1850. Query whether on 1634 Estate Map, this woodland is that area shown planted with trees and called ‘Widow Haigh’s Spring’; the location of the latter appears to be to the south of Mellor Wood (on modern O.S.) and Mr. Aldridge has perhaps equated Mellor Wood with ‘Haigh Spring’. 1634 map also shows field immediately east of last named ‘Three Banck Closes’. N.B. Letter from WY Unit of 1/2/1980 told Mr. Aldridge that member of Unit would visit site; no record in SMR that any visit ever occurred. Until field visit takes place, little more can be said on this site; it is possible that the earthworks are quarry spoil and associated trackways. SMR appraisal essential in first instance. 4803 SE 163 139 Circular Enclosure Cropmark of a sub-circular enclosure, approx. diameter 50m., with possible entrance towards the east. Other marks to the north and east are mostly of natural origin but there is uncertainty about some (very faint). This is the most westerly good cropmark recorded in West Yorkshire and illustrates how much may be lacking in our cropmark records because of the general paucity of arable or other suitable conditions for cropmark formation in this area. The site might no be regarded as lying within a ‘territory’ associated with Almondbury hillfort (PRN xxxx) if it were contemporary with the hillfort occupation. Designation as settlement is conjectural but it is large enough for a small farming unit. It appears to be situated on the south-east facing slope of a small valley containing Lumb Dike, only c. 70m. back from the stream, but this topography has not been checked on the ground. Further evaluation both on the enclosure (to get more detail of the form) and in immediate vicinity (because of poor quality of surrounding marks) if threatened. 4806 SE 198 142 Ditch Cropmarks of one curvilinear ditch of uncertain function and origin. 4807 SE 197 144 Ditch Circular enclosure Cropmark of ditch? Forming an arc of a circle (c. 120 degrees), of radius c. 35 m. (diameter c. 70 m). Interpretation of the AP evidence can go no further but this site should certainly be evaluated on the ground if threatened. 5769 SE 178 136 Unassigned Fragmentary cropmarks – nature/origin uncertain – re-appraise. Tab. 9 Table showing finds relating to the South Eastern quarter of Map SE 11 SE (C) P.R.N Grid Ref’ence Find Details or Description 3947 SE 159 136 Scraper Double-edged scraper of grey-banded flint, found in Mollicar Wood; held by Tolson Museum (acc. No.39.58). 4030 SE 1834 1214 Unassigned Sandstone implement or grain roller, probably used in conjunction with a saddle-quern, to crush grain. The implement was apparently identified by the Br. Mus. in 1957 as a grain roller. Find spot could not be verified by O.S. in 1961. The roller is held by the Tolson Museum, Huddersfield. (acc.no.29.2.1957). 5841 SE 19 12 Flake Flint flake found in centre of Kirkburton. Held by Tolson Museum, acc.no.118.10.72). No better grid ref. and that cited may be inadequate. 1194 SE 1753 1220 Arrowhead Leaf-shaped arrowhead found in March 1957 on the Storthes Hall Estate, Farnley Moor, Huddersfield, by C. Holland. Find spot is exact. The arrowhead was a surface find on ploughed land and is held by Tolson Museum, Huddersfield. (acc. no. 29.1.57). No further information. 2031 SE 1729 1350 Axe, stone Polished stone axe ploughed up in 166 in Field Lane (sic) by Mr F. Barraclough of Beech Farm, Farnley Tyas. The axe was subsequently donated by the finder to the Tolson Museum, Huddersfield (acc. no available). The axe is greenstone and of Langdale type. 2163 1995 1279 Axe-hammer Stone axe-hammer found in the garden of one Dr. Longwood (Dene House, Tanshaw Road, Kirkburton). According to the O.S. card, the implement was found ‘some years ago’. It weighs 3lb 2 ozs and has been perforated twice. The axe-hammer is held by the Tolson Museum, Huddersfield (acc. no.A.24.58). Map 3. South Eastern quarter of Map SE 11 SE showing distribution of sites and finds Source: From Ordnance Survey 1958 with additions. Tab.10 Table showing sites relating to the South Western quarter of Map SE 11 SE (C) P.R.N Grid Ref’ence Site Details or Description 7 SE 1244 1204 Bank (earthwork) Cairn cemetery Cairnfield The site is in the north east corner of Honley Wood ( a mature native woodland) which lies on the north west of edge of Honley Moor, on an escarpment overlooking the valley of the Mag Brook. A considerable number of cairns and some banks were located here, along the top of the escarpment. The O.S. field investigator commented in 1965 that the remains were more likely to be the result of nineteenth century stone clearance, the Huddersfield Archaeol. Society’s does show definite features such as cairns and banks which are more akin to archaeological remains. The site is similar to those located by the Huddersfield Society in Hagg Wood and Slate Pits Wood nearby. The Huddersfield Society stated in 1963 that the site should be excavated but this has not been done. The full extent of the remains is somewhat in doubt and though the scheduled area covers a larger are than that of this particular site at Scotgate, it may not cover all the archaeological remains, The quarry just outside the scheduled area was designated a ‘landfill site’ and because of this, the scheduled area was enlarged to prevent machinery from using tracks in the wood for access to the quarry. Redfern, N. described the quarry area as being landscaped (as of 2002). English Heritage 08/02/1999 SAM Description: The monument includes a cairnfield in Honley Old Wood, 280m north west of the woodlands, it occupies the edge of the plateau and is bounded on its north side by the gritstone escarpment. The cairnfield is comprised of approximately 17 cairns, between 2.5m and 8m in diameter and up to 1m high. Several of the larger cairns have been robbed for stone, leaving crescent shaped stone banks. Most of the undisturbed cairns are subcircular, but two are more elongated and may have formed part of stonebanks. Two rubble banks lie at an angle to each other near the southern edge of the cairnfield. These are typically 3m wide and 0.3m high. North of the rubble banks, at the south of the main group of cairns, is a shallow circular hollow about 9m in diameter which may be a hut circle. 8 SE 1493 1046 Hut circle Ring bank Cairn cemetery Arrowhead Bank (earthwork) Cairnfield A group of 8 cairns, 2 linear banks, 2 linear banks, 2 ring banks and a hut circle on terraces west of the river Holme in an area of relict woodland. When first discovered in 1961, it was unknown whether the remains were burial cairns or the results of field clearance or quarry tipping. Survey and trial excavation suggested to the Huddersfield Archaeol. Soc that they were, infact archaeological features, though this is still uncertain. The cairns range in diameter from 5 to 7 metres and the ring banks are c.12 metres in diameter. Like the cairns, the linear banks are constructed of weathered gritstone cobbles and are c. 100 metres long, almost parallel and c. 40 metres apart with a NW/SE alignment. Two of the cairns were excavated, the finds comprising 2 barbed and tanged arrowheads, other flint fragments, waterworn stones and charcoal – hardly enough evidence to evidence to substantiate the date and function of the site. Five postholes were found beneath one of the cairns but there was no positive evidence for a burial. Similar complexes were identified by the Huddersfield Archaeol. Soc. Nearby in Slate Pits Wood (PRN 9) and Honley Wood (PRN 7). Further afield, parallels can be found with the groups of cairns and ring clearance. A field visit is required to ascertain the present state of the site as it has not been looked at since the plan to erect the TV. mast was approved. The Archaeology Unit stated in a letter dated 09/08/1978 that it would not take the opportunity offered by the developer to excavate (sic) the site. (Letter is in SMR). English Heritage Scheduled monument description 08/02/1999: The monument includes a cairnfield in Hagg Wood, Honley. It is situated at the end of a plateau. Theere are nine cairns, between 3m and 8m in diameter, and up to 0.3m high. The cairnfield also includes two circular features which may be hut circles. The southern of these is a slight hollow with a level base about 12m in diameter. The northern one is largely obscured by holly trees, but is visible as a rubble bank where it is crossed by a path at the northern end of the cairnfield. 9 SE 1190 1092 Bank (earthwork) Cairn cemetery Ring bank Cairnfield Earlier visits to the site (1963, 1979 and 1980) recorded an alleged cairn group with associated ring bank and linear banks, comprising of c11 cairns, 2 linear banks and a partially destroyed ring bank. In 1965 an O.S. field investigator felt that there was not enough available evidence to formulate an accurate interpretation without excavation. He further suggested that the ring bank could be associated with what he termed a ‘small homestead’ of a later date, and that the cairns could be clearance mounds rather than archaeological features. These earlier interpretations have been superceded by an English Heritage Monuments Protection Programme investigation undertaken in 1998. The cairnfield consists of at least 6 cairns and a number of rubble banks. The grass covered cairns are between 3m and 6m in diameter and are up to 0.5m high. The rubble banks are grass covered and are 2m – 3m wide and typically 0.3m high. The banks are concentrated in the north-west corner of the woods. One of the banks in this area is fragmentary and consists of a series of linear stone mounds. The cairnfield survives well and will retain important archaeological information. It is similar to two other woodland cairnfields (7 and 8) in the Honley area. PRN 9 also includes a non-scheduled area (Class III)) to the south. Included in the Class III section is an area that was previously scheduled, which was de-scheduled on 22/06/1999. 13 SE 1225 1408 Curvilinear enclosure The earthwork was stated to be ‘almost obliterated’ in 1924 (Petch). According to Watson, two enclosures exisited in 1775, one measuring 77 x 64 yds., the other 98 x 87 yds. The site has apparently shown up as a cropmark (source?)-possibly RAF; date?). It is marked on the 1st ed. 6 O.S. map as a ‘camp’, but is not shown on the 1932 edn. 25 O.S. (resurveyed 1887-8; revised 1930) nor on later maps. A housing estate, known as Beaumont Park (SE 123 141) now covers most of the earthwork. It is just possible that some small corner of the earthwork shown in 1850 still survives and it is recommended that a site visit be made in the first instance to determine need for further work such as earthwork survey (but very low priority- site probably gone); geophysical survey may also be a possibility, since the site is unlikely to have survived as an earthwork in view of Petch’s comment above. Visit RIS 09/03/1995; see map in township file. Area of possible enclosure completely built over and presumably destroyed. Note however nearby earthworks (PRN 3832) which conceivably could have been associated. 1334 SE 104 124 Barrow N. Lunn reported that there may be barrows on Edge Moor, E. Branse-Instone (EH) records that the location of these barrows is uncertain. There are no barrows marked on the 1st ed. 6 O.S. map. (NB: another possible prehistoric earthwork (enclosure – PRN 5204) reported by N. Lunn, only 8-900 m. to the north. Site visit by WYAAS would be helpful. 5203 SE 135 129 Cairn Clearance cairn Cairns (Number unspecified) found in Mag Wood, Netherton, by Norman Lunn (HDAS). Reported to WYAS by Bon Spence (HDAS). The area within which the cairns lie was fieldwalked, but no finds reported by B. Spence, so assume there were none. No other information available. This site needs further appraisal by SMR, not least to try and identify the actual area of possible concern. Tab. 11 Table showing find relating to the South Western quarter of Map SE 11 SE (C) P.R.N Grid Ref’ence Find Details or Description 5842 SE 1 1 Microlith 8 microliths found in the Huddersfield area by Joe Davis; held by Manor House Museum, Ilkley (acc.no.A2.78.6). No better grid ref. and that cited is definitely inadequate. 8.1 SE 1493 1046 Arrowhead Flint 2 barbed and tanged arrowheads and other flint fragments found during excavations on cairns in Hagg Wood, Honley during 1960’s. Full details in PRN 8. Map 4. South Western quarter of Map SE 11 SE showing distribution of sites and finds Source: From Ordnance Survey 1958 with additions. Chapter Four An examination of Castle Hill First occupied in the third millennium B.C. the fort had been deserted by the time of the building of the first rampart, which has become known as the univallate enclosure. (Hogg, 1975: 120, Varley, 1973, 12).This area was on the south west end, where the Norman Castle stood and the Victoria Tower presently stands. (Figure. 5). This part of the site is the highest ground and would naturally be chosen as the first settlement point. There is no evidence to suggest any defensive structures were built during this period, but after they abandoned the site, the passage of time allowed so that “their hut floors were overgrown for a very long time”, and this interregnum “took the form of a land-surface developed in situ over the remains of the first-known occupation which rests directly on the bed-rock. (Varley, 1973, 12, Harding, 1976: 121). This phase would see the eventual abandonment of the site, setting a pattern of broken and unbroken occupation for the next five millennia up until the present day, when apart from the tourists and dog-walkers at the site, it is regarded as unsettled. From 1812, until as recent as 2005 there was some occupation in the form of public houses, then one public house, then for complicated reasons none at all. The site had returned to abandoned status, which may change in the future pending legal matters. Back to the mainstay of this piece however and the hill-top was finally re-occupied after an unspecified hiatus which has come to be called the ‘First Interregnum’. The site became a univallate enclosure and the first rampart was built. It covered an area of 11,000 square metres (1.1 hectrares),(Hogg, 1975: 120) much smaller than the present fort area. These first defences enclosed a single bank 4 metres in width (Hogg, 1975: 122) which “was placed at the edge of the summit plateau overlooking the steep natural slopes with which it is surrounded”. Varley, 1973: 14). This defence was separated on each side by stone slabs, arranged in an upright position within a slot with a laid stone revetment acting as an exterior façade. At this stage in the monument a ditch had not yet been dug. There was a timber gateway in a simple gap, with a small rectangular timber constructed guard hut positioned to the right from the interior. Unfortunatley no date could be attained for this enclosure. Over time the ruins became turf covered, suggesting a long interval between this phase and the next of an open settlement of roundhouses. (Hogg, 1975: 122). The first enclosure rampart “fell into ruin and was covered with a second land surface.” (Varley, 1973: 14). After this unspecified period of open settlement in which many of the old foundations were levelled the univallate fort was built in the early 7th century B.C. This date was reached throught radio carbon and thermoluminecsence dating . Approximatley half a century after the univallate fort was built it was extended to become a bivallate fort with the rampart doubled. Another century would pass before more changes would occur, with the ramparts being doubled again, leading to the multivalated fort. Half a century or so would pass before the fort would become deserted due to a mysterious fire, which Varely would attribute to an act of spontaneous combustion. Almondbury burns: conflict, combustion or incompetence? Was the rampart set alight deliberately in an attack, a natural phenomenon of self combustion or was it a deliberate act of vitrification to strengthen the earthen ramparts by effectively baking them to be harder and stronger? The ramparts at Castle Hill have been a subject of interest since the time of the historian Camden. At some time during the occupation of the site they came to be set alight through one means or another. There have been a number of theories proposed as to how they came be burnt. Initial suggestions were made by William Camden who writing in 1587 and relying on the writings of the Venerable Bede described how “when Cadwell (sic) the Briton, and Penda the Mercian, made sharp war upon Edwin, the king of these countries, it was set on fire by the enemy, as Bede writeth, which the very dust and burnt colour as yet remaining upon the stone doth testify” (Varley, 1976: 128). “Camden is also quoted as writing “The fire that burnt it down seems to have been exceeding vehement, from the cinders which are strangely solder’d together. One lump was found, of above two foot every way, the earth melted rather than burnt”. (Rumsby, 1992: 5). This was the accepted view until scientific techniques emerged in the mid 20th century to corroborate or dispute such suggestions. It was found during the excavations of Varley that the Ramparts were not in use during the time that Bede was writing about. There was a distinct lack of occupation from between 430 B.C. and 1140 A.D when the site was revitalised under the occupation of the conquering Normans. This 700 year hiatus does not mean however that the site was not “unofficially occupied” by “squatters”. This situation would mean that no major alterations were made to the ramparts until the arrival of the Normans who would redevelop the hill top. If such squatters were to inhabit the site it is unlikely they would leave any major impact on the site. The existing rampart remains would perhaps make ideal “lean to’s” for their own basic housing. It is difficult to find evidence for any occupation at this time, but a small settlement could have been constructed within the inner ramparts, using part of the remaining wall as a wind block and shelter. Building materials would be unlikely to differ from what was in use during the heyday of Castle Hill in the Iron Age. When these huts finally diminished, they may have left hut circles in the ground to trace their former presence. If such marks were to be visible they surely would now be visible from the air, seen in aerial photographs. However the Normans did do some considerable development of the site. With this redevelopment any trace of occupation during the period when the hill was thought to be uninhabited may have been wiped away during the building phase of the Normans in the 1140’s. With this in mind we must literally return to the “burning question”. How were the ramparts set alight? Varley’s conclusion was in-fact inconclusive, “the only alternative suggestion I am able to make, admittedly unsupported by objective experimental evidence, is that the posts inserted in the centre of the crest of the rampart, for which there is some evidence, took fire, or were fired, and that there after the heat travelled downwards and was transferred to timbers inside the rampart and thence to the clay core in the areas around those timbers, as visual impression suggested”. (Varley, 1976: 130). He then offers the suggestion that the fire may have been started deliberately to destroy the external palisade, but had far more devastating consequences than initially intended, with the result been the rampart would burn, then collapse. Varley then concludes his writing on the burning with “clearly the matter will remain unresolved for the time being”. The actual dating of the burning is based on radio-carbon dating. It is unclear from Varley’s writings when the C14 dating was carried out, but it was done by Dr. Martin Aitken, of the University Of Oxford Institute Of Applied Archaeology. “(Dr. Aitken) applied the technique he has so successfully developed for the dating of pottery to the study of burnt clay on our Inner Rampart at site 31 and the answer he has arrived at is that the Inner Rampart of Castle Hill was burnt in 431 B.C.” (Varley, 1973: 27) This of course allows for the error margin each way plus or minus of 180 years. Since then, C14 dating had improved, and the error margin now rests at 40 years, with it increasing over a much longer period of time. The convention radiocarbon date is given as 447 B.C. “for an occupation floor immediately behind the same section of the Inner Rampart” in addition to the first date, a second conventional radiocarbon date of 464 B.C. is given for “a piece of timber taken from the upper part of the same rampart”. It is then decide by Varley through this methodology that “it would appear to be the case that the inner Rampart of the Multivallate Fort was burnt not very long after it was built. (Varley, 1973:26-7). However Varley’s explanation seems to be the only reasonable one which there is. In short this is what was reasoned, “Dr. Varley, after experimentation with Coal Board officials, came to the conclusion that the fire was caused not by the hand of man, but by spontaneous combustion of the timbers inside the ramparts due to pressure, a process similar to that which occasionally causes fires on coal waste tips.” (Rumsby, 1992: 6) With this statement in mind, that “it was burnt not very long after it was built, could the possibility be raised that the fort was actually deliberately set alight by the builders? The evidence of its burning shows the fire was started inside the fort. There is a possibility suggested by Raymond Varley, the nephew of excavator William Varley that the site was set alight deliberately by the Iron Age occupants as they abandoned it for a settlement lower down the valley, torching and demolishing the ramparts as they left to ensure no other local tribes took the hill-fort for their own gain. (Varley, 2006) However this theory seems to make little sense, as the ramparts had only recently been rebuilt. It is possible that the ramparts once rebuilt, were then deliberately set alight to bake them in the aforementioned act of vitrification giving them extra strength and sturdiness. However the fire became too intense and the plan to make them harder and stronger backfire, causing the ramparts to become weakened. This then could have led to their collapse. Figure 4. Reconstruction of first rampart. (After Varley, 1973). Source: Varley, 1973: 15. Figure 5. Reconstruction of the defences of the Univallate Fortlet. (After Varley, 1973). Source: Varley, 1973: 15. Figure 6. Reconstruction of the north western junction of the Bivallate Extension with its predecessors. (After Varley, 1973). Source: Varley, 1973: 21. Figure 7. Reconstruction of the Gateway through the Univallate Fortlet. (After Varely, 1973). Source:Varley, 1973: 21. Figure 8 . South-east looking aerial view of Castle Hill with Newsome and Longley in the background Source: After http://www.webbavation.co.uk Consulted 26/3/06 Figure 9. South-western looking aerial view of Castle Hill with Almondbury village in the background. Source: After http://www.webbavation.co.uk Consulted 26/3/06 Figure 10 View of Castle Hill and its sentinel like tower looking from Farnley Bank Source: After http://www.mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/nigelhomer/index3.htm. Consulted 26/3/06 Chapter Five Discussion From the production of maps which plot the various sites and finds around Huddersfield, settlement patterns can be attempted to be drawn. The maps show the sites listed and described in tables 4 to 11. The overall settlement picture in one of scattered activity, with an element of focus directed towards Castle Hill. The finds plotted on the map correlate in some areas better than others. This is best demonstrated on map SE 11 SE north eastern quarter with a cluster of flint finds in the north central section. Map SE 11 SE north western quarter is where we begin our examination of the correlation of prehistoric sites and finds. The first site on this map is of an unassigned barrow of uncertain date (C 3904). The details of the SMR describe the barrow which is not unlike a motte and bailey mound, as a “large tree-covered mound, visible from M62; precise nature and date uncertain, but likely to be of recent origin (trees not particularly mature). This mound is known locally as the ‘grave of the Romans’. Proper ground inspection (WYAS) appraisal) required in first instance.” (SMR data, table 4). The statement that trees were not particularly mature does not necessarily indicate the mound is of recent origin. It is possible that older trees on the mound were felled in recent times, therefore the tree’s now there may have re-grown since. Therefore it is inadequate to denote a date based on the presence of some young trees. As recommend by the SMR, a sight visit or perhaps even a trial excavation would be worthwhile. One and a third kilometres (just over ¾ of a mile) north-north-east of this mound there was found a “broken unpolished flint axe, found on a footpath in Fixby Park r in c. 1931”, (find C 2131). The find spot is precise and was confirmed to O.S. by the finder. Nearly thirty years later a Neolithic leaf-shaped arrowhead was found in 1959 at the same spot. These finds show some level of activity within a very precise spot, which is Gernhill Wood. It was found on a footpath, which could potentially be a track way dating back to the Neolithic. In the same grid reference square, but no where near as precise a find spot, was found a spear of uncertain date, (find C 4052). The SMR data describes how historian Turner mentions a spearhead found on higher ground near Fixby; nothing else available on this find and it cannot be correlated / substituted with any other find for which more details is available. One kilometre to the south-south-east of the site of the unassigned barrow known to locals as “Grave of the Romans” there is an unassigned rectangular enclosure of suspected Bronze or uncertain age. Site C 2314 on a footpath at Reap Hirst is described in the SMR as “an earthwork of circular form lying above a small valley called Grimescar Dike.” This site not near (unless 1km of considered near) any other sites, and the nearest find to it is the spear (C 4052) which is only approximate to a grid reference purporting to one whole square. Towards the south west of map SE North Western quarter, there lies the sites of two suspected, though absent Bronze Age stone circles, at Golcar (C 4056). These are referred to in the SMR data as ‘North Stone Rings’ and ‘South Stone Rings’ which are place names on the Golcar Tithe Award Map. “These names suggest presence of a prehistoric stone circle or circles; there is no evidence of such on the ground, nor is there any known documentary evidence for such a circle or circles.” (SMR data, Table 4). If such stone circles did exist, it is great shame there is nothing of them to see, only the survival of place name element. Their existence may have shed some light of the of function religion to the Bronze Age inhabitants of this distinct. It would be interesting to have known precisely what sort and size of stone circle they were. The suggestion that there were two of them makes the case all the more intriguing. Roughly 2 Km (1 ¼ miles) to the East-south-east there is a translucent grey flint find of a possible arrowhead which had a ‘missing tang’ according to the finder suggesting it to be an arrowhead. (Find C 1190, SMR data, Table 5). Just 1 km to the North east-north-east of this find there were found another two flints (C 3970) one a possible arrowhead. Found on the surface of an unmade road near Basil Street, Crosland Moor it is possible that the flints were deposited along with road material brought to the site from elsewhere. One flint is described as a fabricator, the other as a broken petit tranchet arrowhead, but this remains uncertain. (SMR data, Table 4). These few finds do not suggest much more than an infrequent occupation of this area to the south of the River Colne and west of the River Holme or simply a scarcity picked up by flint finding enthusiasts. Lying one mile to the south-west of the flint finds described above is the site of a curvilinear enclosure of uncertain date. This site ( C 13) is described in the SMR data as “an earthwork stated to be ‘almost obliterated’ in 1924 (Petch). According to Watson, two enclosures existed in 1775, one measuring 70 by 58 metres (77 by 64 yards), the other 89.6 by 79.5 metres (98 by 87 yards).” (SMR data, Table 10). The SMR goes on to state, “it is marked on the 1st ed. 6 O.S. map as a ‘camp’, but is not shown on the 1932 edition. 25 O.S. nor on later maps. A housing estate, Beaumont Park (SE 123 141) now covers most of the earthwork.” It then continues to relate how there is possibility of something remaining of the original feature “a small corner of the earthwork shown in 1850 still survives and it is recommended that a site visit be made in the first instance to determine need for further work such as an earthwork survey…area of possible enclosure completely built over and presumably destroyed. Note however nearby earthworks (PRN 3832) which conceivably could have been associated.” This site as the SMR notes is virtually developed as modern housing-estate land; however it would a plausible at some stage in the future for a close examination of any surviving parts the site to bring the information up to date. To the south of the curvilinear enclosure (C 13) there are four sites of a Bronze Age date. The first of these is to the west-south-west, C 1334. This is a Bronze Age barrow on Edge Moor, however it is reported in Table 10 of the SMR data that the location of these barrows is uncertain, “There are no barrows marked on the 1st ed. 6 O.S. map”, however the data also reveals how there is another possible prehistoric earthwork (enclosure – PRN 5204) 8-900 m. to the north. A visit by the SMR office would be of some use for further confirmation or revelation. East of this unconfirmed barrow and 1 and a ¼ kilometre (3 ¼ of a mile) from the south bank of the Mag Brook at Scotgate, there lies some bank earth-works. This is also a suspected cairn-field with a “considerable number of cairns.” This number was confirmed by English Heritage in 1999 to be 17 cairns, measuring between 2.5 m and 8m in diameter, and reaching up to 1 m in height. (SMR data, Table 10). Situated in the northeast corner of Honley Wood, on a grit-stone escarpment which overlooks the Mag Brook valley, the area is abundant with mature woodland. The notion of cairns existing there was rejected in 1965 by an O.S field investigator, commenting that they were “more likely to be the result of nineteenth century stone clearance”, however this claim was rebutted by the Huddersfield Archaeological Society, when a survey they commissioned would show “definite features such as cairns and banks which are more akin to archaeological remains.” (SMR data, Table 10). The site is said by the SMR to be similar to others located by the Huddersfield Archaeology Society at Hagg Wood (C 5203) and Slate Pits Wood (C 9) which are in close proximity, within a mile to the approximate north-east and south-west respectively. No excavation has been carried out, even though the idea was suggest in 1963 by the aforementioned society. Many of the cairns are incomplete; having been robbed for stone, leaving them crescent shaped stone banks. There is one area, to the south of the cairn-field, a “shallow circular hollow, about 9m in diameter which may be a hut circle”. If this is a hut-circle it seems unusual to have a single hut. It may be suggested that this was a ceremonial building, related to the mortuary practices of the people who constructed the cairns, such as a form of Chapel. A parallel can be drawn with eastern funerary tradition, practiced in both the Jewish and Muslim faith, but having its roots going back much further than the age of these religions. Stones are left at the grave of the deceased, which over time build up, as the mourners place another stone of remembrance each time they visit the grave. The hut circle, could parallel the roundhouse or “Oleg” where the funeral ceremony is held. However this comparison is only preliminary and would need investigating further if it was to be deemed of any significance. To the north-east, approximately 1.2 Km (3 ¼ of a mile) from the cairn-field of north-east Honley Wood and on the west bank of the River Holme there is another Bronze Age cairn-field. At Mag Wood, South Crossland, little is know about this site, although it was field walked in recent times. (SMR data, Table 10). However no finds were reported. It is yet another area due for an SMR reappraisal. Its location like the cairn-field at Honley and all the other known Cairn-fields is near a water-course. This location may have had some religious significance to the people who lived in this region during the Bronze Age. The river course is likely to have shifted to some degree since the sites were initially chosen as a deposition grounds, with them now been either further away or nearer to the course of the nearest river of stream. Water of course was and still is sacred, being a vital component to preserve all life. The flow of the water may have been a symbolic route for the soul of the deceased. This aspect, not technically archaeology would make interesting theological surmising and debate as to the function and reason for the locations of these archaeological features. Southbound from the Mag Wood suggested cairn cemetery and back across the Mag Brook there is another cairn cemetery, (C 9). Almost 5 km (3 miles) from Mag Wood is Slate Pitts Wood. Here is contained an “alleged cairn group with associated ring bank and linear banks”, of 6 cairns and a number of rubble banks. (SMR data, Table 10). The group comprises approximately 11 cairns, 2 linear banks and a partially destroyed ring bank. In 1965 an O.S. field investigator remarked that cairns could be no more than “clearance mounds rather than archaeological features”. The rubble banks which are concentrated in the north-east corner of the woods are overgrown with a grass covering and measure 2-3 metres in width and average 30cm in height. It was also reported that the ring bank could be associated with what he termed a ‘small homestead’ of a later date. Ultimately it was decided that there was not enough available evidence to formulate an accurate interpretation without excavation. (SMR data, Table 10). With this note in mind the area is due for a reappraisal and a trial excavation. In 1998 English Heritage visited the site, and included it in their Monuments Protection Programme. It is noted that the cairn-field has survived well, and “will retain important archaeological information”. East-south-east beyond the west bank of the River Holme and 3 and ¼ Km (2 miles) from the Slate Pitts Wood cairn-field is another cairn group at Hagg Wood;(C 8). Of a Bronze Age, Iron Age and uncertain date, this group comprises are 8 cairns, 2 linear banks, 2 ring banks and a hut circle. These rest upon terraces in an area of relict, receding woodland. Upon their discovery in 1961 it was disputed whether they were burial cairns or the consequence of quarry tipping or field clearance. After trial excavation and a survey it suggestions were made by the Huddersfield Archaeological Society that they were reputable archaeological features, though the basis for these claims is still in doubt Ranging from 5-7 metres in diameter and up to 60 cm in height, the cairns are constructed from weathered grit-stone cobble. The ring banks are approximately 12 metres in diameter. Constructed from the same material as the cairns, the 2 linear banks run almost parallel, 40 metres apart and are 100 metres in length. They are aligned north/south. Upon excavation, 2 of the cairns were found to contain flint fragments and 2 barbed and tanged arrowheads. In addition water-worn stones and charcoal were found. The SMR remarked that these are “hardly enough to substantiate the date and function of the site.” (SMR data, Table 10). Five post holes were found beneath one of the cairns, but there was no positive evidence for burial. Upon inspection in 1999, English Heritage remarked that there were two circular features which may be hut circles. “The southern of these is a slight hollow with a level base about 12m in diameter. The northern one is largely obscured by holly trees, but is visible as a rubble bank where it is crossed by a path at the northern end of the cairn-field” Eight microliths of vague placing was discovered somewhere within the region of SE 1 1. These were simply “found in the Huddersfield area” by one individual. No more is recorded about them. Studying map SE 11 SE South Eastern Quarter it can be seen that 2 ¾ miles to the north-north-east of the Hagg Wood cairn-field, there is another cairnfield, of Bronze Age, Iron Age and Uncertain age, C 1043. This settlement and cairn cemetery comprises earthworks, cairns (of an unspecified number or measurements) and banks. There are also probable quarry remains of a more recent date. (SMR data, Table 8). This again is located near a waterway, the Thunder Bridge Dike. It is infact located between this Dike and a tributary which meanders to a fold at Saville Wood. There is a possibility that these remains are more extensive, but this must be confirmed absolute, with another appraisal to prove this. For the foreseeable future the site is “treated as a guide only and does not represent the actual extent of archaeological remains.” (SMR data, Table 8). About 550 metres (600 yards) to the West-north-west of this cairn-field was found a sandstone implement or grain roller, (C 4030). This is thought to have been used to crush grain, coupled with a saddle quern. Identified in 1957 by the British Museum as a grain roller, its find spot is unverifiable. It is however quite a unique artefact amongst the other finds in this area. Just 595 metres (650 yards) from the approximate find spot of the grain roller was found a lozenge shaped arrowhead, C 1194 on the surface of ploughed land. The find spot is exact. (SMR data, Table 9). Over the Thunder Bridge Dike, and 1200 metres (3 ¼ of a mile) to the east-north-east of the Cairn-field at Saville Wood (C 1043) was found in a garden a stone axe-hammer, (C 2163). This is of Bronze Age date and weighs 1.418 kg (3lbs 2oz) and has been perforated twice (SMR data, Table 9). The fact that the exact find spot is known is better for record purposes than comparatively the grain roller (C 4030). It does however indicate that everyday work related activities such as food preparation and forestry were taking place within this area of Kirkburton during the Bronze Age. Roughly 3 and ¼ Km (2 miles) to the north-west of the Saville Wood Cairnfield and 5 and ½ Km (3 and ½ miles) to the east-south-east of Castle Hill there are some fragmentary crop-marks (C 5769) which are unassigned and of uncertain date. These lie in Carr Wood, between to springs and to the west of the Thunder Bridge Dike and north of the Range Dike. Approximately 365 metres (400 yards) from these cropmarks, there is a marked on the map the site of where a Langdale type, greenstone axe was discovered. This polished stone axe was ploughed up in Field Lane in 1966 (SMR data, Table 9). It appears that the general distribution of finds and sites seem to be all closely connected on a location basis. On the map of Huddersfield, Castle Hill is almost exactly at the centre, giving it after the city centre a sense of focus and importance. This would have been a likely focal point in pre-historic times too with many features in the landscape being dominated by the mount with the hill-fort atop. It commands the surrounding valley, giving an excellent surveillance point. By the north bank of the Rushfield Dike on the south east approach towards Castle Hill there is a circular enclosure of uncertain date, (C 4803). Described by the Sites and |Monuments Records Office as “the most westerly good crop-mark recorded in West Yorkshire” (SMR data, Table 8). This crop-mark is of a sub-circular enclosure, with an approximate diameter of 50 metres. There is a possible entrance towards the east, which would be in the direction of the Dike. Other marks to the north and east are mostly of natural origin but there is uncertainty about some which very faint in appearance (SMR data, Table 8. The site might no be regarded as lying within a ‘territory’ associated with the Almondbury hill-fort (figure 4) and if it were contemporary with the hill-fort occupation, its designation as settlement is considered conjectural. However it is large enough for a small farming unit. It appears to be situated on the south-east facing slope of a small valley containing Lumb Dike, only circa 70 metres back from the stream, but this topography has not been checked on the ground. Further evaluation is required of both the enclosure and in the immediate vicinity due the poor quality of the surrounding marks if they ever appear threatened. Figure 11. Direct aerial view above Castle Hill and immediate surrounding landscape Source: After http://www.brigantesnation.com/SiteResearch/Iron%20Age/Almondbury/Almondbury.htm Consulted 26th March 2006 Original source: After http://www.multimap.com Cited 2nd December 2002 To the west-south-west of the crop-mark (C 4803), there was found a double edged scraper of grey banded flint, in Molicar Wood. (Find C 3947). To the north-west of cropmark C 4803 there is an unassigned hollow way (C 3841), which is of certain date and nature. Lying at mid point of approximately 550 metres (600 yards) from the crop-mark and the centre of Castle Hill, comprise a “series of earthworks described as levelled earth circles and hollow ways in Mellor Wood. It is possible that the earthworks are quarry spoil and associated trackways. An SMR appraisal was considered essential in the first instance”. (SMR data, Table 8). This being just a matter of metres from Castle Hill is potentially related to pre-historic settlement in this area. However, as the SMR data comments, it could simply be a quarry spoil heap. As the SMR data recommends, an appraisal should be under taken. It is worth noting that at the time of the SMR entry on 1st February 1980 a letter was written stating that a member of the SMR would visit the site. There is no record of any visit ever occurring. (SMR data, Table 8). At the Almondbury hill-fort site itself there were excavated during the late 1930’s flint and stone artefacts. These comprise a barbed and tanged arrowhead found 1937, flint flakes, possibly a knife and the butt of a polished stone axe found on site 1 during 1939. Details of the flints pieces are of convex scrapers, an end scraper, a core trimming flake and a blade end flake. (SMR data, Table 7). This collection of flint materials is hardly surprising given Castle Hill’s status and location as a Hill fort. Even before its official Hill-Fort status in the late Bronze Age, it is likely the hill top site would have been used as a strategic look out point reaching far back into the Neolithic, the likely time of these flints depositions. However as the Neolithic merged into the Bronze Age, the use of flint would overlap into this new age. This age happened in this part of the British Isles later than it did on the mainland European peninsula. A possible rectangular or rectilinear enclosure and ditch, thought to be of non-antiquity located approximately 365 metres (400 yards) from the confluence of Fenay Beck and Rushfield Dike. Uncertain in age these crop-marks are circa 2500 square metres (¼ of a hectare), with associated external linear ditches are “somewhat obscured by the relative darkness (green-ness) of the crop generally and by numerous narrow marks”. (SMR data, Table 6). Two ditches of uncertain date lie in close proximity to each other 3.2 Km (2 miles) from the rectilinear enclosure site. These crop-mark ditches in Lepton Great Wood, C 4806, is described as a curvilinear ditch, with its function and origin uncertain. The second, C 4807 forms the arc of a circle (circa 120 degrees) with a radius of circa 35metres and a diameter of 70 m. Here is yet another site which the SMR feel should be re-evaluated if under threat. (SMR data, Table 4). On map SE 11 SE north eastern quarter there is a large cluster of flint finds (most “finds” are flint). This can tell us that the area was occupied over a continuous period of time. However a scatter of flint in an area could also mean it was occupied by a large number of people over a very short period of time. The fact that flints have been found in one area does not tell us how long and how many people were there, merely that there were people there. There are 8 finds centred on grids SE 17, 18 and SE 18, 18 found clustered together north-west of Kirkheaton. These range from flints (C 17, C 18, C 19, C 20, C 3925), a flint working site ( C 3927) flint knives (C 16, C 3926, C 3846) to a mace-head (C 4049) which was found just to the south west of this cluster, near Briggate, between Rawthorpe and Jagger Hill. Elsewhere on map SE 11 SE north-eastern quarter there is a small cluster of finds, to the south of Dalton on the other side of the Roundwood Beck to the flint finds mentioned previously near Kirkheaton. With these there is a bronze axe (C 4185, Grid Ref: SE 17, 16) of which no information exists except it is from Dalton. The other finds are another bronze axe (C 3877), which is suspected to the same as the bronze axe numbered as find C 4185. The other find is a fragment of a polished stone axe (C 1989), of which details can be found in Table 7. Also on this map (SE 11 SE north-eastern quarter) there is a scatter of isolated flint finds, which still contribute to the overall settlement activity picture of this area. Between Bogden and Lepton there were found in 1926 four burnt flints which included amongst them a tanged arrowhead. These were cited to be found on Chapel Hill, though this is not necessarily the precise spot. (SMR data, Table 7). This find spot is approximately 914 metres (1000 yards) from the site of a ditch or circular enclosure in Lepton Great Wood. This ditch or circular enclosure is of uncertain date and is under question as to whether it is a crop-mark or a ditch. It forms an arc of a circle (c. 120 degrees) with a radius of c. 35 m and a diameter of c. 70m. The SMR recommended it should be re-evaluated if under threat. (SMR data, Table 6). North West of Lepton at Dalton, just c 90m from the eastern bank of the River Colne there was found a leaf shaped or lozenge arrowhead. This is thought to be Neolithic. (SMR data, Table 5). It is of translucent brown flint and was found at the spot of Kilner Bank. Near to here, though of only a vague grid reference was found another flint this time a saw which in the contexts of the flints found around Huddersfield is quite rare, as this is the only flint saw mentioned in the SMR Data. This description based account of the SMR records of the Neolithic, Bronze Age and Iron Age sites and finds of Huddersfield has taken us on a journey of discovery and analysis, in which our knowledge of a pre-historic landscape has hopefully being broadened and or refreshed. Conclusion It is here that we come to the end of our journey of sites and finds around Castle Hill and beyond, on map SE 11 SE. This has attempted to examine the proximity of sites to each other to a degree, though considering the ages and variations of sites and monuments has been difficult to put into perspective and give any sort of formal speculation as to the relationship between all the sites under examination. Many are simply uncertain, and would throw into jeopardy any worthwhile surmising. The most reliable sites are the one of similar or earlier age to the hill-fort, with an obvious function in relation to the needs and way of life of the people who dwelt upon Castle Hill during the Bronze and Iron Ages. These would include the crop-marks near to the site, which though of uncertain age are the only recognisable features of a circular enclosure near to the Almondbury hill-fort. It is possible many of the further away features such as barrows C 1334 and C 3904 acted as boundary markers over a vast territory. However there are number of natural water-courses which could also have acted as natural boundaries within a defined territory. It has been observed from the plotting of cairn cemeteries on the map SE 11 SE that they were established to the south of the Castle Hill hill-fort. Running in both south-west and south-east directions, and in all four cases of cairn-field, been within a few hundred metres of a water-course. These locations, being southerly and by running water may have been chosen for their significance to the religious beliefs of the people who located them there. The people living here were likely to have been farmers, growing crops and rearing livestock, in an age far distant from own, though having the same basic needs to survive. Since their culture disappeared, many of their secrets have been given up and will probably never be known to us today. We as archaeologists have only the remnants of their material culture, and a knowledge of present cultures distant from our own, which we can try to draw comparisons with in order to quench our thirst for reconstructing an age which is forever lost. Theories will come and go as to the meaning of these monuments, but one fact is certain; the landscape is dotted with monuments from a time in history which saw this land begin to change forever. Almondbury’s importance in a national context was likely to stem from its central position with Britain. Midway between the east and west coasts and between the north of Scotland and south of England Almondbury not only dominates the local landscape, it dominates north central Britain as the largest in a network of Hill-forts between the Scottish boarder and the north Midlands. In a regional context Almondbury was possibly became through time the lynchpin of a tribal unification in the north. The site of Castle Hill was power base, an administrative headquarters, a farming stronghold, a homestead, a statement of wealth and security. It was many things to many people, but above all these things it was someone’s home, the place they felt safe and at ease. Suggestions for further work It may be suggested, to make a valid interpretation of the Pre-historic landscape of Almondbury and its Huddersfield vicinity that further work is carried out in some sectors. This is most dramatically required in many of the SMR records. These monuments have been noted by the sites and monuments records office, some many years ago, but perhaps due to lack of funds and resources this in many instances has not been overseen. The site of Almondbury Hill-fort itself does not need any re-evaluation, as the work done with radio carbon and thermoluminescent dating in the 1970’s is still valid for the dates achieved. The list overleaf is of all the sites the SMR recommend for re-appraisal: List of Sites Recommended for SMR reaapraisal: C (P.R.N.) 2314 Uncertain Age Rectangular Enclosure 3904 Uncertain Age Unassigned Barrow 1334 Bronze Age Barrow 5203 Bronze Age Cairn / Uncertain Age Clearance Cairn 1043 Bronze Age Cairn Cemetery / Iron / Bronze Age Settlement / Uncertain Age Cairnfield 1465 Uncertain Age Rectangular Enclosure / Ditch 3841 Uncertain Age Unassigned / Holloway 4803 Uncertain Age Circular Enclosure 4807 Uncertain Age Ditch / Circular Enclosure 5769 Uncertain Age Unassigned Monument Fuller details of these can be found in Table 3 and Tables 5-11 for exact SMR details. Bibliography A-Z Huddersfield Street Atlas, 2005. Sevenoaks: Geographers’ A-Z Map Company Limited. Anonymous. 1912 (Reprinted 1974). Victoria History of the counties of England: Yorkshire. Fortified mounts with one or more attached courts. London: Dawsons of Pall Mall. Bewley, R. 1994. Prehistoric Settlements. London: Batsford Ltd. Chadwick, A. 1999. Digging ditches, but missing riches? Ways into the Iron Age and Romano- British cropmark landscapes of the North midlands, in Beven, B. (ed.), Northern Exposure: interpretative devolution and the Iron ages in Britain. Leicester: University Press. Chadwick, S.J. 1867, Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, Volume XV. Excavations on the site of Almondbury castle. Publisher Not Listed. Cunliffe. B. 1995. Iron Age Britain. London: Batsford Ltd. Cunliffe. B. 1999. Iron age communities in Britain: An account of England, Scotland and Wales from the Seventh Century BC until the Roman Conquest. London: Routledge. Dyer, J. 1992. Hillforts of England & Wales. Risborough, Buckinghamshire: Shire Publications Ltd. Dyson, T. 1913. pp 4. Huddersfield in history and legend. Huddersfield Daily Examiner. Faull, M.L & S. A. Moorhouse. 1981. West Yorkshire: an archaeological survey to A.D. 1500, Volume 1. Wakefield: West Yorkshire Metropolitan Country Council. Ferrel, G 1991. Space and society in the Iron age of north east England, in Gwilt, A. & C. Haselgrove. (eds.), Reconstructing Iron Age societies: New approaches to the British Iron Age. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Harding, D.W (Ed.) 1976. Hillforts: Later prehistoric earthworks in Britain and Ireland. London: Academic Press. Harding, D.W. 2004. The Iron Age in Northern Britain: Celts and Romans, Natives and Invaders. London: London. Hartley, B & L. Fitts. 1988. People of Roman Britain: the Brigantes. Gloucester, Alan Sutton Publishing Ltd. Hogg, A.H. 1975. Hill-forts of Britain Huddersfield Daily Examiner. pp6 September 23rd 1928 Ancient British Fort Huddersfield Daily Examiner, pp52 August 18th 1948. Unravelling the story of an Ancient British site. Huddersfield Daily Examiner, Circa 1949. Castle Hill tower may be closed. Huddersfield Daily Examiner, February 16th 1948. Our Local monstrosity. Huddersfield Daily Examiner, August 18th 1949. Shutters up at Castle Hill tower. Huddersfield Daily Examiner, Circa 1949 “Spooners’ Turret” is talk of the town”. Hulbert, C.A. 1882. Annals of the church and parish of Almondbury, Yorkshire. London: Longman & Co. Manby, Frederick. November 10th 1997, pp 16 Yorkshire Post. Towering achievements and a blaze of glory. Parker Pearson, M. 1993. Bronze Age Britain. London: Batsford Ltd. Pogson, Tony. Huddersfield Examiner. 2001. Tower Extra: Why on a clear day you can now see towering sights. Petch J. A. 1922. Early man in the district of Huddersfield. Huddersfield: Kirklees Community History Service. http://www.hudderfield1.co.uk/huddersfield/tolson/early_man/coming_romans.htm Consulted 14th November 2005. Ordnance Survey. 1958. Map sheet SE 11 SE. Chessington, Surrey: Director General of the Ordnance Survey. Rumsby, J. in Haigh, E.A.H. (Ed.) 1992 – Huddersfield: Most handsome town: Aspects of the history and culture of a West Yorkshire. A castle well guarded: the archaeology and history of Castle Hill, Almondbury. Huddersfield: Kirklees Cultural Services. Varley, R, 2006 (n.d.) http://www.brigantesnation.com/SiteResearch/Iron%20Age/Almondbury/Almondbury.htm Consulted 26th March 2006 Varley, W.J. 1939. Castle Hill, Almondbury excavation committee: report of the first year’s excavations 1939: Unknown Publisher Varley, W.J. 1973. Castle Hill, Almondbury: a brief guide to the excavations 1939 – 1972. Huddersfield: Unknown Publisher White., R.F & Wilson, P.R. (Eds.) 2004. Archaeology and historic landscapes of the Yorkshire Dales. Leeds: Yorkshire Archaeological Society. West Yorkshire Archaeology Service, 2002. WYAS Geophysics, Castle Hill, Almondbury, West Yorkshire. WYAS Publications. West Yorkshire Archaeology Service Sites and Monuments Record. Various records relating to the Parish of Almondbury and pre-historic finds in the district of Huddersfield. Accessed 7th December 2005.