More information : (TQ 54170333) Long Barrow (NR) (1)
A long barrow on Windover Hill, 180ft long. The extension of the downhill ditch to a point opposite the NE rise raises the question whether the big mound was not originally as long as this side of the ditch, the rise having been formed subsequently by traffic or a way cut across the NE end. (See plan). (2)
A long barrow, scarped into a gentle NW-facing slope, measuring c68.0m NE-SW by c. 13.0m across and about 2.0m maximum height, with flanking ditches visible as vegetation marks. The barrow is mutilated towards its NE end by an old track crossing it, giving the erroneous impression of two mounds.
Re-surveyed at 1:2500 (3)
The mounds are visible on aerial photographs of all dates as well as on available lidar coverage, the dimensions conforming roughly to the lengh and width measurements noted above. The mound was first surveyed and described by Herbert Toms in a paper on Sussex long barrows published in 1922. He was not overly confident about its identification as a long barrow. His description, in full, is as follows: "The long mound...puzzled me on first inspection, and I wondered whether it had any connection with the adjoining chalk pit. The dich on the down-hill (north-west) side is present, but filled up nearly level. The mound is of the same length as the 'Long Burgh', 180 feet. The ordnance survey makes it appear some 250 feet in length, but I imagine the surveyors included the rise with a flat top, which my plan shows adjacent to the north-east end of the mound. Standing on this rise, one looks down the very steep escarpment on to the "Long Man" or "Wilmington Giant". The extension of the down-hill ditch to a point opposite the north-east rise certainly raises the question whether the big mound was not originally as long as this side of the ditch, the rise having been formed subsequently by traffic or a way cut across the north-east end. This long mound lies about 250 feet down from the hill-top, and the 600 feet contour runs on to the upper part of the mound. With the irregularities caused by tracks at the north-east end, the plan and sections compare very favourably with those of the 'Long Burgh' at Alfriston".
Cecil Curwen's account of the "Antiquities of Windover Hill", published in 1928, accepted both Toms' description and the interpretation of the mound as a long barrow. Both Toms and Curwen regarded the trackway that approached and crossed the mound as being earlier than the mound, but Curwen (erroneously) believed that the trackways leading up to and across the hilltop were Roman in date, something that also implied an early date for the mound. Subsequently, the only matter of debate has concerned the issue noted by source (3) above - whether the barrow comprises a single long mound, crossed at one end by a later track, or is a long mound with a smaller round mound adjacent to its NE end.
Examination of the nearby supposed Neolithic flint mines by RCHME in November 1995 confirmed earlier sugegstions that these were in fact the earthwork remains of medieval or post medieval quarries and associated spoil heaps. Consequently Toms' original doubts need to be considered. Toms had wondered abut a possible connection with the nearby chalk pit, which is quite sizeable. However, he does not mention the smaller, but more numerous pits, hollows and spoil heaps that extend right across the hilltop, including the areas later identified as flint mines. Although the mound strongly resembles a Neolithic long barrow in size and shape, the possibility that it comprises medieval or post medieval quarry spoil needs to be borne in mind.
Examination of aerial photographs as part of the Beachy Head NMP confirms previous descriptions of the mound(s), but also demonstrates that earthworks relating to chalk and flint extraction are extensive across the hilltop. (5-8) |