See important guidance on the use of this record.

If you have any comments or new information about this record, please email us.

Summary

Archaeological anomalies recorded during a magnetometer survey at Berry Castle, Huntshaw. Some of the anomalies previously unmapped may be associated with Berry Castle.

Location

Protected Status

• Scheduled Monument 1016225: Berry Castle hillfort in Huntshaw Wood

Other References/Statuses: none recorded

Monument Type(s) and Dates

• ARCHAEOLOGICAL FEATURE (Early Iron Age to Modern - 700 BC to 2013 AD (Between))

Full description

Dean, R., 2016, Berry Castle, Huntshaw, Torridge (Report - Geophysical Survey). SDV359971.

This report presents the results of an archaeological magnetometer survey at the above site, hereafter referred to as the survey area. It has been prepared for the Friends of Berry Castle as part of an ongoing programme of research and conservation. The survey area location is shown in Figure 1. The survey area includes a Scheduled Monument comprising the bulk of Berry castle and the relevant licence to carry out a geophysical survey was obtained by The Friends of Berry Castle as summarised above. Thirty-three magnetic anomaly groups were mapped as representing possible archaeological deposits or features.

Magnetic anomaly groups 3, 4 and 5 in Area 1 coincide with the previously mapped extant earthworks of Berry Castle (Figures 5 and 6). This scheduled monument (number 1016225) is recorded in the Devon Historical Environment Record (entry MDV5627) and the National Monuments Record (entry 33126). Group 3 approximately coincides with the outer edge of a negative earthwork visible on the northern edge of the monument that is likely to be a partial surface expression of the ditch. Sections of what is likely to be the same ditch are represented by fragments of the anomaly group on the west, east and south edges of the extant earthworks. Group 4 coincides with the outer face of extant banks of the monument and is likely to represent a rubble core of the monument bank which, from the position of the anomaly group in relation to the visible earthworks as recorded in Figure 5, appears to have partially collapsed into the ditch. Anomaly group 5 coincides with the inner face of the extant banks and with the top of the relatively low southern bank. This implies that either the inner face is of earthen construction or that earthen material has been deposited subsequent to construction.

Excluding the three relatively recent quarry pits (Figure 2 and other figures), and other sections of the earthworks too steep to survey safely, groups 4, 5 and 6 show only one distinct gap in their collective pattern which is situated to the northern end of the western side and corresponds to the decoy entrance described by Wall (1906) (location A in Figures 3 to 6). Whilst some of the anomalies in this area have here been characterised as relatively recent (see the discussion of 201 and 202 below), the fact that all three anomaly groups break here suggests that this is the site of an original entrance (see Section 5.3.1 for a discussion of this entrance). Two other entrances have been proposed by Wall at points B and C in Figures 3 to 6) although these were not identified as entrances in two later studies (see Section 5.3.1). Group 5 is continuous across point B although groups 3 and 4 are interrupted. This implies that either this is not the site of an entrance, that group 5 was deposited after this entrance fell from use. Group 15 may represent fragments of a former track coinciding with this gap in groups 3 and 4 but no inference can be drawn as to the dates of the possible track. Point C is the third entrance proposed by Wall. The analysis of the anomalies is complicated by the presence of a quarry pit but here group 4, interpreted above as representing a stony constituent of the rampart, appears continuous so making this proposed entrance far less likely than the other two.

Group 14, which may represent a ditched track or raised earthwork such as a causeway, could point to an alternative eastern entrance. As with point B, groups 3 and 4 are discontinuous and group 5 in continuous in the vicinity of group 14. While the analysis is complicated by the presence of a likely quarry pit, the same argument can be made as for point B.

Groups 201 and 202 in Area 1, whilst recorded by Wall (1906) as earthworks associated with a false or decoy entrance, the magnetic response in conjunction with a visual assessment by the Substrata surveyors suggests that these groups represent relatively recent ground disturbance, possibly the quarrying recorded in this vicinity from 1922 onwards (Section 5.3.1). This does not negate the existence of an entrance, decoy or otherwise (see above) but does suggest that these anomalies are not associated with such an entrance.

Anomaly group 13 in area 1 coincides with a faintly visible platform. Similar anomaly patterns encountered in other surveys by the author have been found to represent charcoal production platforms and, although not certain, this explanation seems the most likely in this case.

Anomaly groups 203, 204 and 205 in area 1 approximately coincide with the current track (204) and previous expression of that track recorded in 1906 (203 and 205) as shown in Figures 5 and 6.

Groups 27, 28, 29 and 30 in Area 4 are in the vicinity of two banks which have been identified as possible unfinished eastern defences associated with the main monument. These anomaly groups, and perhaps groups 31, 32 and 33, do appear to represent linear structures although no further archaeological characterisation is possible without extending the area of survey into currently dense woodland.

Data with no previous archaeological provenance
Magnetic anomaly groups 8, 9, 10, 17 and 19 appear to represent internal divisions parallel to the current extant earthworks (Figure 5). Speculatively, they could be expressions of further defences or an earlier structure possibly later expanded to the current monument but no conclusions can be drawn from the survey data.

Group 20, south of the southern rampart in area 1, may represent part of the monuments earthworks but equally may represent more recent disturbance or agricultural terracing of unknown period. Groups 23, 24 and 25 in Area 3 may also represent agricultural terracing.

Groups 21 and 22 in Area 2 may represent linear archaeological deposits.

Within Area 1, three anomaly groups representing the extant ramparts were characterised as
representing an outer ditch, a stony element of the ramparts on the outer side and an earthen element of the ramparts on the inner side. These three anomaly groups were present on all sides of the monument. The northern-most of two previously identified locations for potential entrances on the western side of the monument is most likely to be a true entrance and not a decoy as originally described in 1906. The magnetic anomaly group representing an earthen element of the ramparts on the inner side at the second proposed western entrance is continuous which implies that this is not an entrance or that the structure of ramparts underwent changes after an entrance was constructed. A third previously identified potential entrance on the eastern side was discounted as the anomaly group representing a stony element of the rampart was continuous at this location. A alternative entrance sited centrally on the eastern side was identified, again with reservations concerning the anomalies representing an earthen element of the ramparts on the inner side. Within the main body of the monument, potential inner divisions were mapped that mirrored the main ramparts in shape and a potential charcoal production platform was tentatively identified. Two linear anomalies representing potential archaeological deposits were identified in Area 2 but not characterised further. Anomalies representing possible agricultural terraces were identified in Area 3 and on the southern side of Area 1.
No conclusions were reached about a previously mapped surface deposit of stones in Area 3. Linear anomaly groups representing stony and earthen deposits were identified in Area 4 that may represent previously recorded earthworks external to the main monument.

Dean, R., 2017, Berry Castle, Huntshaw, Torridge: Geophysical Survey (Report - Geophysical Survey). SDV360558.

This report presents the results of an archaeological gradiometer (a type of magnetometer) survey and subsequently commissioned resistance survey. This report includes data and analysis from an earlier report of the magnetometer survey carried out between 27 June and 1 July 2016 (Dean, 2016b). The magnetometer data analysis and conclusions are updated in this report in the light of evidence obtained from the resistance survey.

Both the magnetic and earth resistance responses were sufficient to be able to differentiate anomalies representing possible archaeological features. The magnetometer (gradiometer) and resistance analyses suggest that the structure of the main earthworks at Berry Castle comprises an outer ditch with an small ramp on the outer edge surrounding an earthen bank with a stone-revetted outer face which has partially collapsed into the upper deposits within the ditch. On the southern side of the monument the pattern of anomaly groups may be explained by the partial destruction of the bank and the filling of the ditch to create a track.

The northern-most of two previously identified locations for potential entrances on the western side of the monument is most likely to be a true entrance and not a decoy as originally described in 1906. The magnetic and resistance anomaly groups representing an earthen element of the ramparts on the inner side at the second proposed western entrance is continuous which implies that this is not an entrance and that the bank at this location was breached and repaired at some point subsequent to initial construction and possibly fairly recently. A third previously identified potential entrance on the eastern side was discounted as the anomaly groups representing an earthen element of the rampart was continuous at this location.

Within the main body of the monument a potential charcoal production platform was tentatively identified with associated resistance anomalies implying the presence of pits although these may be tree boles. The potential charcoal production does not rule out an earlier origin for this platform. Two linear magnetic anomalies representing potential archaeological deposits were identified in to the
west of the scheduled area but not characterised further. Anomalies representing possible agricultural terraces were identified outside of the scheduled area near the southwestern corner. No conclusions were reached about a previously mapped surface deposit of stones at this location. Evidence for possible agricultural terraces were identified and on the southern side the monument. Linear anomaly groups representing stony and earthen deposits were identified northeast of the scheduled area that represent previously recorded earthworks external to the main monument and which may not have a direct association.

Sources / Further Reading

Associated Monuments: none recorded

Associated Finds: none recorded

Associated Events

• EDV7166 - Magnetometer Survey, Berry Castle, Huntshaw, Torridge (Ref: 1603BER-R-1)

Search results generated by the HBSMR Gateway from exeGesIS SDM Ltd.