Chapter One
Topography and Geology
The area of the Pennines Huddersfield rests upon is geomorphologically acid illdrained 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.
1
Map 1. The location of Castle Hill, Almondbury (circled) within the West Yorkshire locale.
Source: After A-Z Huddersfield, 2005.
2
Figure 1. An aerial view of Castle Hill, Almondbury taken from the north east.
Source: FromWYAS, 2002:
3
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
4
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
5
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.
6
Tab. 1
Time line summarising the history of Castle Hill, Almondbury
Approximate Date
2100 B.C.
625 B.C.
600 B.C.
390 B.C.
Time Period
Neolithic
Late Bronze Age
Early Iron Age
Iron Age
Iron Age
580 B.C.
Iron Age
460 B.C.
Iron Age
430 B.C.
Iron Age
60 A.D.
500 A.D.
700 A.D.
1068 A.D.
Roman
Anglo Saxon
Scandinavian
Norman
1140 A.D.
Norman
1275 -1300 A.D.
Middle Ages
1320 A.D.
Middle Ages
1588 A.D.
Tudor
1702 - 1714 A.D.
1804 - 1814
Modern
1810 -1812 A.D.
Modern
1898 - 1899 A.D.
Modern / Victorian
Settlement Type
Undefended village huts
Small enclosure defended by a single bank.
Undefended village built over earlier defences
First fort: defended by a single stone and
timber rampart and ditch.
Settlement enlarged: defences extended to
enclose the whole hilltop. Permanent settlement
of circular huts.
Rampart raised and widened and new ramparts
added, annexe added. Further banks and ditches
built further down the slope.
Large areas of ramparts destroyed by fire. Site
seemingly “abandoned” for next six centuries.
Hill “uninhabited”.
Hill “uninhabited”.
Hill “uninhabited”.
. William “the Conqueror” grants land around
Huddersfield to his comrade in arms, Baron
Ilbert De Laci..
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.
During the reign of King Edward I, the Castle
is converted into a hunting lodge.
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.
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.
Beacons on the hill to warn of French and
Napoleonic Fleets impending threat.
First Public House built there, after the site
became a meeting ground for religious and
radical thinking groups.
Victoria Tower built. Also known as
Jubilee Tower and Spooner’s Turret.
Source:Tolsom Memorial Museum Exhibtion information board, with additions.
7
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.
8
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.
9
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
10
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.
11
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.
12
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.
13
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
14
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:
1.
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.
2.
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
15
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
3.
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
16
threats, Figure 3. This intense burning, believed to have occurred initially from the
exterior of the rampart is still debateable 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.
17
Figure 3. Plan of Castle Hill showing outer ditches and lines of building phases.
Source: From Varley in Hogg, 1975.
18
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
19
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
20
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: 115117.
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
21
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.
22
Tab. 2
Table showing S.M.R. data of known Bronze & Iron Age sites within the District of Huddersfield
(C) P.R.N.
2314
Grid Ref’ence
SE 128 188
3904
SE 121 197
Township
Fixby, Lindley
Cum Quarmby
Fixby
4056
7
SE 1021 1578
SE 1244 1204
Golcar
Honley
Site Type
Rectangular
Enclosure
Unassigned
Barrow
Stone Circle
Bank
(Earthwork)
Cairn Cemetery
Cairn Cemetery
Period
Uncertain A
Uncertain
Uncertain A
Bronze Age
Uncertain
Bronze Age
Uncertain
8
9
13
1334
5203
1043
SE 1493 1046
SE 1190 1092
SE 1225 1408
SE 104 124
SE 135 129
SE 188 121
Honley
Honley
South Crosland
South Crosland
South Crosland
Almondbury
Thurstonland
Hut Circle
Ringbank
Bank
(Earthwork)
Cairn Cemetery
Cairn
Cemetery
Ring Bank
Bank
(Earthwork)
Hut Circle
Cairnfield
Bank
(Earthwork)
Cairn Cemetery
Ring Bank
Bank
(Earthwork)
Cairn
Cemetery
Ring Bank
Cairnfield
Culvilinear
Enclosure
Culvilinear
Enclosure
Barrow
Cairn
Clearance
Cairn
Cairn
Bronze Age
Bronze Age
Bronze Age
Bronze Age
Iron Age
Iron Age
Iron Age
Iron Age
Uncertain
Bronze Age
Bronze Age
Bronze Age
Iron Age
Iron Age
Iron Age
Uncertain
Uncertain
Uncertain
Bronze Age
Bronze Age
Uncertain
Bronze Age
23
Cemetery
Settlement
Cairnfield
3841
SE 159 143
Almondbury
Unassigned
Hollow Way
4803
SE 163 139
Almondbury
Circular
Enclosure
Circular
Enclosure
4806
SE 198 142
Lepton
Ditch
4807
SE 197 144
Lepton
Dirch
Circular
Enclosure
Ditch
5769
178 136
Farnley Tyas
Unassigned
Source: Sites and Monuments Records Database. Cited 07/12/05
Bronze Age
Iron Age
Uncertain A
Uncertain
Uncertain
Uncertain A
Uncertain A
Uncertain
Uncertain
Uncertain A
Uncertain
24
Tab. 3
Table showing S.M.R. data of known Bronze & Iron Age finds within the District of Huddersfield
(C) P.R.N.
1190
2131
Grid Ref’ence
SE 120 154
SE 1323 1987
Township
Lockwood
Fixby
3916
4052
5842
14
SE 141 186
SE 13 19
SE 1 1
SE 198 153
Huddersfield
Fixby
Huddersfield
Lepton
16
17
18
19
20
1989
2002
SE 175 188
SE 175 190
SE 176 187
182 189
182 188
SE 17273 1690
SE 153 141
Kirkheaton
Kirkheaton
Kirkheaton
Kirkheaton
Kirkheaton
Dalton
Almondbury
3781
SE 15 16
3782
3846
SE 154 175
SE 180 195
Almondbury
Dalton
Dalton
Kirkheaton
3877
3906
3925
3926
SE 17 16
SE 16 17
SE 172 185
SE 174 184
3927
SE 182 188
Almondbury
Dalton
Dalton
Kirkheaton
Dalton
Kirkheaton
4030
SE 1834 1214
Thurstonland
4049
SE 169 177
Dalton
4185
SE 17 16
Dalton
Find Type
Flint
Axe, Flint
Arrowhead
Arrowhead
Spear
Microlith
Flint
Arrowhead
Flint
Knife
Flint
Flint
Flint
Flint
Axe, Stone
Axe, Stone
Arrowhead
Flake
Knife
Period
Uncertain A
Neolithic
Neolithic
Bronze Age
Uncertain A
Mesolithic
Bronze Age
Arrowhead
Core
Knife
Flint
Axe
Saw
Flint
Knife
Neolithic
Uncertain A
Uncertain A
Uncertain A
Bronze Age
Uncertain A
Uncertain A
Mesolithic
Lithic working
site
Flint
Scraper
Mesolithic
Macehead
Macehead
Axe
Uncertain A
Bronze Age
Uncertain A
Uncertain A
Uncertain A
Uncertain A
Neolithic
Neolithic
Bronze Age
Uncertain A
Uncertain A
Mesolithic
Uncertain A
Neolithic
Bronze Age
Bronze Age
Mesolithic
Uncertain A
Bronze Age
Source: Sites and Monuments Records Database. Cited 07/12/05
25
Tab. 4
Table showing sites relating to the North Western quarter of Map SE 11 SE
(C) P.R.N Grid Ref’ence
3904
SE 121 197
Site
Unassigned
barrow
4056
SE 1021 1578
Stone Circle
2314
SE 128 188
Rectangular
Enclosure
Ridge and
furrow
Unassigned
Details or Description
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.
‘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.
This is an earthwork of circular form lying
above a small valley called Grimescar Dike.
To complete after BY, JM survey.
26
Tab. 5
Table showing find relating to the North Western quarter of Map SE 11 SE
(C) P.R.N Grid Ref’ence
1190
120 154
Find
Flint
2131
1323 1987
Axe, flint
Arrowhead
2314
SE 128 188
Scraper
3916
SE 141 186
Arrowhead
3970
SE 1290 1554
Flint
Arrowhead
4052
SE 13 19
Spear
Details or Description
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.
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).
Found within an earthwork of circular form
lying above a small valley called Grimescar
Dike. To complete after BY, JM survey.
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.
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.
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
27
Map 2. North Western quarter of Map SE 11 SE showing distribution of sites and finds
28
Source: From Ordnance Survey 1958 with additions.
Tab. 6
29
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 Site of uncertain date and nature, comprising
Hollow way 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.
1465
181 149
Rectangular Cropmarks of a possible large rectilinear
enclosure
enclosure, c. 025 ha, with associated external
Ditch
linear ditches. This feature is somewhat
Nonobscured by the relative darkness (greenantiquity
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
Cropmark of ditch? Forming an arc of a
Circular
circle (C. 120 degrees), of radius c. 35 m.
Enclosure
(diameter c. 70 m). Interpretation of the AP
Ditch
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
30
(C) P.R.N
14
Grid
Ref’ence
SE 198 153
16
SE 175 188
17
SE 175 190
18
SE 176 187
19
SE 182 189
20
SE 182 188
2002
SE 153 141
1989
SE 17273
1690
3781
SE 15 16
Find
Details or Description
Flint
Four burnt flints including a tanged
Arrowhead arrowhead found in 1926 cy C.F. Cameron
Flint
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).
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.
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).
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.
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.
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).
Axe, Stone Almondbury hillfort- flint and stone artefacts
Arrowhead comprising: 1). Butt of a polished stone axe
Flake
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.
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.
Knife
Flint knife found in a bed of clay at
Turnbridge, near Huddersfield, (grid ref.
31
encompasses Turnbridge; nothing more
definite); in Tolson Memorial Museum,
Hudderfield (acc no. A.29.58). No further
information.
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.
Core
Several flints found at Upper Heaton; small
Flint
flint core was found in trench XI of medieval
Knife
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.
Axe
Bronze axe reputed to have been found at
Dalton, Kirkburton; no further information.
Saw
Flint saw of uncertain date, found at Dalton,
Flint
Kirkburton; no further information. No better
grid ref. and even that cited may be
inadequate.
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.
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.
3782
SE 154 175
3846
SE 180 195
3877
SE 17 16
3906
SE 16 17
3925
SE 172 185
3926
SE 174 184
3927
SE 182 188
Lithic
working
site
Flint
4049
SE 169 177
Macehead
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.
The record for this find is obscure; the card
merely cites the Roe & Radley article
32
4185
SE 17 16
Axe
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.
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
33
Source: From Ordnance Survey 1958 with additions.
Tab. 8
34
Table showing sites relating to the South Eastern quarter of Map SE 11 SE
(C) P.R.N Grid Ref’ence
1043
SE 188 121
Site
Cairn
Cemetery
Settlement
Settlement
Cairnfield
1465
SE 181 149
Rectangular
Enclosure
Ditch
Nonantiquity
3841
SE 159 143
Unassigned
Hollow way
Details or Description
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)…..
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.
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
35
4803
SE 163 139
Circular
Enclosure
4806
SE 198 142
Ditch
4807
SE 197 144
Ditch
Circular
enclosure
5769
SE 178 136
Unassigned
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.
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.
Cropmarks of one curvilinear ditch of
uncertain function and origin.
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.
Fragmentary cropmarks – nature/origin
uncertain – re-appraise.
Tab. 9
36
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 saddlequern, 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
AxeStone axe-hammer found in the garden of
hammer
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
37
Source: From Ordnance Survey 1958 with additions.
Tab.10
38
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
The site is in the north east corner of Honley
(earthwork) Wood ( a mature native woodland) which lies
Cairn
on the north west of edge of Honley Moor,
cemetery
on an escarpment overlooking the valley of
Cairnfield
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
39
8
SE 1493 1046
Hut circle
Ring bank
Cairn
cemetery
Arrowhead
Bank
(earthwork)
Cairnfield
south of the main group of cairns, is a
shallow circular hollow about 9m in diameter
which may be a hut circle.
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
40
9
SE 1190 1092
Bank
(earthwork)
Cairn
cemetery
Ring bank
Cairnfield
13
SE 1225 1408
Curvilinear
enclosure
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.
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.
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
41
1334
SE 104 124
Barrow
5203
SE 135 129
Cairn
Clearance
cairn
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.
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.
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
42
(C) P.R.N Grid Ref’ence
5842
SE 1 1
Find
Microlith
8.1
Arrowhead
Flint
SE 1493 1046
Details or Description
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.
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
43
Source: From Ordnance Survey 1958 with additions.
Chapter Four
44
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
45
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.
46
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
47
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.
48
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
49
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.
50
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.
51
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.
52
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
53
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
54
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.
55
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
56
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
57
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
58
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
59
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
60
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
61
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
62
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
63
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 cropmark 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).
64
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 nonantiquity 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
65
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).
66
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.
67
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 southwest 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
68
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:
69
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.
70
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.
71
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
72
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.
73
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.
74
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.
75