Printed from the APC web site: navigation and non-essential images removed.
Please view on-line for full content (URL at end of document).
Scheduling History
The henge monuments were first scheduled in 1923. A map showing the extent of the scheduled area was never produced and when it was proposed to extend the scheduling in 1967 to include the cursus this anomaly was rectified by rescheduling the henges along with the cursus. The scheduled area at this time comprised the upstanding earthworks of the henges themselves and the cursus; the boundary was drawn extremely tightly. The outer ditches of the henges, visible on the same photographs from which the cursus was identified, were not included in the rescheduling.
It was not until 1987 that the scheduled area was increased to include the linking corridor between the three henges and an extension which included the line of the southern double pit alignment.
In the 1950s and 60s and 70s quarrying removed a tract of land to the west of the Central Henge. The extraction of this gravel bit into the edge of the outer henge ditch and removed a portion of the bank. Small scale rescue excavations were mounted in 1958 by Vatcher who also excavated the cursus at several points and a cist burial.
In 1969 when there were no regulations or policies in place to protect unscheduled monuments, the Ministry of Public Buildings and Works was invited by West Tanfield Quarries to mount an archaeological investigation on the site prior to and during gravel working. They gave over a year's notice that their permitted extraction would encroach onto the area around the henge. Despite this lengthy notice no action was taken by the MoPBW and no archaeological work was carried out. Subsequent history, as written by some archaeologists, has of course heaped criticism on the mineral operators for destroying this important archaeological landscape without record.
With the exception of the Northern Henge, the remainder of the monument complex has been ploughed for most of the 20th century. Recent work by Harding (2003) has shown that this process had started by at least the Medieval period.
At various times between 1983 and 1998 English Heritage acknowledged that the continuing destruction, by ploughing, of the two southernmost henge monuments and their immediate archaeological context was a serious problem which merited some form of action. Despite this they consistently declined to use any of their powers, including compulsory purchase, and failed to purchase the rights to cultivate the land within the Central Henge in perpetuity when the opportunity arose.
Aside from the issue of compulsory purchase, in 1983 the area of land around the Southern Henge was put up for sale by tender. English Heritage declined to purchase the monument at this time and take it into guardianship.
In May 1991 land which comprised the two southernmost henges and West Tanfield Deserted Medieval Village were sold by tender. English Heritage was informed in advance of the sale by Hambleton District Council and urged to act. Again English Heritage declined to purchase the monuments and take them into guardianship. The interiors of the Southern and Central Henges continued to be ploughed until 1996.
Since 1998 the two southernmost henges have been protected under a stewardship agreement with the tenant farmer. In accordance with that stewardship agreement each henge and an area linking the three has been protected from further cultivation. This area has been defined by a continuous hedge.
The area outside the henges, which includes the location of the scheduled Three Hills Barrows, Double Ring Ditch Barrow, Oval Enclosure and the Southern Double Pit Alignment, is not protected under the present agreement and is subsequently still under cultivation. Recent work undertaken by Harding for English Heritage has shown that these monuments are being seriously damaged year on year.
The issue of continuing erosion and failed management agreements has on a number of occasions prompted English Heritage to consider complete archaeological excavation as a way of preserving the archaeology for future generations. Amid fears that the agreement with the farmer would collapse, English Heritage considered funding the complete excavation of the Central Henge in order to preserve by record any archaeological features and allow cultivation to continue; for reasons of cost this idea was abandoned.
In 2001 English Heritage considered the complete excavation of 41ha of land immediately to the east of the Thornborough Henges as one of six management options for the area. At this time English Heritage offered to develop the henge complex into a tourist attraction with the tenant farmer. The preliminary talks collapsed.
Conclusion
As examples of the management of nationally important scheduled ancient monuments the story of the Thornborough Henges and their associated monuments and landscape is a lamentable catalogue of lost opportunities and dubious management decisions.
In 1998 integral and scheduled elements of the monument complex were subject to a rescue excavation by Newcastle University. Though possessing powers to prevent a perceived threat to the monument being realised English Heritage decided to opt for preservation of the nationally important archaeological remains by record rather than in situ. It is reported that the unexcavated remains which were left in the ground were irrevocably destroyed, without any record, when the land was reinstated for agriculture.
The proposed extension of Nosterfield Quarry onto Ladybridge Farm has drawn attention to the area as never before. Unfortunately this interest seems to have chosen to ignore the main issue regarding the Thornborough Henges and their immediate surroundings. Continued ploughing has been highlighted by English Heritage, and its predecessors, for over thirty years as the main threat to the integrity of the monuments and their archaeological context, yet the fields around the henges remain under intensive cultivation.
In 2003 Simon Thurley, the chief executive of English Heritage, heralded a campaign to address the problem of the wholesale destruction and erosion of the nation's archaeological heritage through ploughing. In their campaign document "Ripping Up History" English Heritage claim; "Since 1945, increasingly intensive cultivation has damaged many archaeological sites. Modern ploughing has done more damage in six decades than traditional agriculture did in the preceding six centuries. Among the sites being actively ploughed are nearly 3000 scheduled monuments - sites recognised as being of national importance to our heritage."
Like so many other areas of Britain, the problem of continuous damage of unrecorded archaeological deposits within the Thornborough landscape is well documented. Work commissioned by English Heritage and undertaken by Newcastle University has shown that Three Hills Barrow Group "are in an advanced state of destruction - much of the damage caused by agricultural practices over the last fifty years." (Harding 2004).
Of the original three barrows only one survives as an earthwork, having been reduced by 0.5m over the last 50 years. The Double Ring Ditch Barrow located to the southeast of the Southern Henge, was the subject of a topographic survey, then later trench evaluation. Dr Harding remarks; "The monument, known from aerial photography, has been very badly damaged by ploughing, to the extent that it is no longer visible as an earthwork, yet in 1952, when Grinsell undertook his survey it survived to a height of 1.5m." (Harding 2003).
Even more worrying is that in 1997 fragments of pottery were recovered during fieldwalking over the soilmark of the inner ditch, "suggesting ploughing was cutting into significant deposits" (Harding 2003). It is generally acknowledged that pottery of this type does not survive in the ploughsoil for more than a year, indicating that the damage to sub surface cut archaeological features was, and presumably still is, an ongoing process nearly eight years later.
Harding claims that "The damage caused by ploughing is also considerable, and it is possible that those scheduled barrows still under the plough could be destroyed within a decade if they are not taken out of cultivation. The upstanding archaeology has been massively denuded or completely eradicated by ploughing leaving only dug archaeological features, which, presumably, are themselves being gradually eroded by the plough" (Harding 2003).
This erosion of dug archaeological features has been recorded in detail at Nosterfield Quarry (FAS 2005) and is, if anything, the common factor in the archaeological record of the area in general. Indeed some of the pits in the double pit alignment which were excavated by Harding in 1998 as mitigation against an increase in the depth of ploughing, only survived to a depth of 0.25m.
Evaluation fieldwork on The Double Ring Ditch Barrow in 2003 recorded plough disturbed human remains in a shallow pit. In this instance "much of the bone had been freshly broken, due to ploughing, and often material from the ploughsoil refitted with other pieces from the spread feature". The level of destruction and urgency to take action prompted Harding to state; "The actions of just a couple of years of ploughing will very significantly degrade the quality of this archaeology. It is suggested that an agreement is reached with the current farmer concerning agricultural activity at this site before it is too late." (Harding 2004)
No agreement has so far been reached and presumably another cycle of ploughing will have caused further unrecorded damage and loss.
The presence of flint in the ploughsoil across most of the area around the henges is testament to the process of erosion and destruction taking place annually. It almost certainly indicates that many archaeological deposits have already been destroyed without any form of compensatory record. Even the robust flint pieces recovered in fieldwalking undertaken by Newcastle University in 2003 had suffered. Harding states in his results "The overall condition of the assemblage was poor, with almost ubiquitous plough damage and a high incidence of breakage." (Harding 2004)
This process continues today, even within the areas of scheduled monuments supposedly afforded statutory protection by the state.
The archaeological deposits at Ladybridge Farm are subject to the same processes of persistent erosion by the plough. Like Harding, I would estimate that within a few years, certainly less than ten, they will have disappeared totally from the archaeological record. With them will have gone what little useful information they retain. The remains are poorly preserved and their potential is limited, but as long as they survive in situ they have some potential, some realisable value. After being ploughed this coming autumn their potential will be lessened, and again next year, and again...
The picture painted by opponents of change is frequently misleading and mischievous; it has to be to make a case, to grab the headlines and be given the oxygen of publicity. Quarrying is therefore portrayed as the destroyer of our archaeological heritage despite the fact that over most of the country for the last twenty or more years it has more frequently been its only saviour, preserving by record what would have otherwise been destroyed in situ, unrecorded, by the plough.
Many archaeologists have benefited, and continue to benefit, from the opportunities offered by mineral working. Unlike agriculture, strict planning controls ensure that any losses that might be occasioned by society's demand for minerals are, after public and democratic debate, compensated for; the polluter surely pays. Despite this quarry operators are condemned by some archaeologists as being like a Pol Pot; an unpleasant, unmerited and unforgivable slur. Perhaps these myopic critics should first address the failings and double standards of our own profession and those of the appointed and publicly funded guardians of our heritage.