F&,

on-]J]

r',

E]

/,

)-JV)

Irl

=TU&

THE NEOLITHIC FLINT MINES ANDASSOCIATBD FEATURES AT

BLACKPATCH, SUSSEX

An archaeological survey by the Royal Commission on

the Historical Monuments of England

@ Crcten copl,tighl Decembu 1998

MONUMENTSO'ENGLAND

THE NEOLITHIC FLINT MINES ANDASSOCIATED FEATURES AT

BLACKPATCH, SUSSEX

An archaeological surveY bY the

Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England

County:West SussexParish:PatchingNGR:TQ094088NMRNo:TQ 00 NE 5/43

Surveyed: D Field and M Barber

Report by: D Field and M Barber,APtranscription:C Dyer and S CrutchleyInvestigation: D Field and M BarberIllustrations: T Pearson

Royal commission on the Historical Monuments ofEngtandNational Monuments Record centre, Kemble Driv€, swindon,

sN2 2GZ 01793 414700

Contents

l lntroduction

2 Geology

3 Historical background

4 The earthworks

5 The Air Photogmph transcription

6 Discussion

7 Method and acknowledgements

8 Annex 1 The excavations

9 Annex 2 Earthwork details

l0 Annex 3 Details ofshaits from Pull's excavations

I I Annex 4 Other sites in the vicinity

l2 Annex 5 Air Photograph transcription

13 Bibliography

List of illustrations

a) Incorporated into this rePort

I Plan ofearthworks

2 Air Photograph transcriPtion

b) Available for insPection in the RCHME archive at The NQtiorull Monuments Recotd

Kemble Drive, Swindon, SN2 2GZ, oriSinals at Ilorthing Museum, Sussex'

3 Putl's (1912) published sile plan

4 Unpublished, undated sketch plan by Pull

5 Unpublished 1951 sketch plan by Pull

6 (a) Shaft 1, plan and sections (Goodman et al 1924)

(b) Shaft 2, plan

7 Shaft 2, sections (Pull 1932)

8 Baffow no l, plan, sections

9 Barrow no 2, plans and section

10 Banow no 3, plans and sections

ll Banow no 4. plans and sections

12 Barrow no 5, plan and sections

13 Barrow no 8, plan and sections

14 Barow nos 6 & 9, plans and sections

l5 Barrow no 12, plan

1.

Summary

Grount! and air photograph surve! b)) lhe RCHME hss recorded lhe remsining extsnt

ea hwotks an(l visible soil marks of lhe Neolithic Jlinl mine comPlex ot Blsckpstch'

,9zsse.L l/tis is comparetl to lhe work csrried oul by J Pull during the 1930,s and an

sssessmenl mtde of lhe chronologJ) and naturc ofthe sile.

Introduction

Traces ofearthworks that indicate the position ofthe Blackpatch flirlt mines were surveyed

by the Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England in February 1995 as part

of an investigation into Neolithic enclosure and industry in England. The flint mines are

listed in the National Archaeological Record as TQ 00 NE 5, and the associated "barrows" as

TQ 00 NE 43. The mines form Scheduled Ancient Monument No. AMS 47.

Located some 8km north-west of Wodhing in West Sussex, and 2.5km to the nodh of the

villages of Patching and Clapham, the mined area centred at TQ 094088 lies immediately

north-east of Myrtlegrove Farm in a field currently laid to pasture, at c 100m - 130m above

OD. The Patching-Clapham parish boundary runs through the site, and the mine shafts

themselves would appear to lie wholly on the west (Patching) side of the boundary' The

Harow Hill flint mines are intervisible at c 2km to the north-west, those at Church Hill are c

l 5km to the east, and beyond Church Hill (and obscured by it), the complex at Cissbury lies

some 4km distant.

Geology

Situated centrally on the Sussex White Chalk Formation some 3km south ofthe South Downs

escarpment, the site occupies a spur that runs south from the slopes of Blackpatch Hill. A

series of coombes running north-south provide access to the coastal plain, with the present

coastline 6.5m distant. The exploited material is probably sheet flint from the upper part of

the Old Nore Beds of the Newhaven Chalk Member (Mortimer 1986, 4l). Only one flint seam

is visible in excavtion photographs and section drawings, which, judging from the depths of

the excavated shafts appea$ to be roughly horizontal, and is likely to outcrop around the false

cr€st of the ridge. Other flint seams, although apparently not exploited, are likely to be

present and may outcrop further down the ridge slopes. On the surface lie shallow and well-

drained soils ofthe Icknield Series, with much surface flint derived from an eroded seam.

2.

Historical Background

The flint mine site lies adjacent to the Patching/Clapham boundary at some distance from the

respective villages, and it is likely that this is the reason for its survival into the 2oth century,

having escaped cultivation during the historic period. In fact, the evidence from the

excavation of the very low burial nounds around the flint mines suggests that little if any

ploughing had ever occuned around the mines prior to the excavations this century.

The area seems to have formed part of the Michelgrove Estate, a name first mentioned in

1193 and centred at Michelgrove House lkm to the south-west ofthe flint mines (Eustace

193 0 i Hudson I 980). The name suggests a wood land origin but by the I 6th century there was

pasture for 1000 sheep at Michelgrove Farm (Hudson 1980,15) and the land in the vicinity

would appear to have been open downland at that time. The Toposraphical Survev of the

Countv of Sussex by T Yeakell and W Gardiner published in I 778 shows M ichelgrove House

itself with extensive formal gardens. Enclosed fields are also present but the flint mine site

lay outside the enclosed area, and an undated Estate Plan ofthe same period shows the site as

'The Downs'(WSRO QR/W635). Myrtlegrove Farm, formerly Michelgrove Farm, situated

immediately south-west of the mine site, was established in 1814, reducing somewhat the

former sheepwalks (Hudson 1980,186,189), while the Tithe Map for Patching dated 1838

(WSRO TD/W96) shows the field containing the mine site as enclosed, but with no name

The area is shown as open downland on the I st edition OS 25 inch map surveyed in 1876, but

much ofthe area was ploughed during World War ll. In l97l, the OS field investigator stated

that "all that remains arevague unsut-veyable undulations in the area oftheJlint mines, and

the a orphous remains ofa banow,....The area is now under pasture.

The flint mines were first recorded by Mr CH Goodman in 1919, and were 'discovered'

independently by JH Pull in 1922. The s ite was planned and excavated by J ohn Pull and partly

published in the Sussex Archaeological Collections, the columns ofthe Worthing Herald, and

a book about the sit e, 'TheJlint uiners of Blackpatch" wtitten by Pull for a general rather than

academic audience. Despite an assessment of Pull's work in the area by E Pye (1968), much

olthe site remains unpublished and little known, and details are therefore provided in Annex

1. Pull's plan (Figs 4 & 5) of the flint mines indicates the presence of some 120 shafts'

However, following the bulldozing and ploughing ofthe 1950s, little now remains above

ground.

Finally, the area ofthe flint mines itself was bulldozed during the early 1950s (Ratcliffe-

Densham & Ratcliffe-Densham 1953, 69). Traditionally the farmer has tended to take the

blame for this, but various unpublished sources (eg Sussex Archaeological Committee

minutes 8/2/1950) indicate that the destruction was carried out at the behest of the War

Agricultural Committee, apparently without the knowledge or cons€nt of the tenant farmer'

The Ratcliffe-Denshams were primarily concerned with the excavation of the Bronze Age

site on the adiacent ridge, but their statement that the 'whole lrea was scheduled forimmediate deep ploughing'may refer to the flint mines as well.

3.

The Earthworks

The mined area covers some 2.5ha, but the site incorporates barrows and other archaeological

features that coverthewhole ofthechalkspur. None ofthese other features remain extant and

they cannot be plotted as soil marks. Of the mine complex little remains. The position ofonly

twelve shafts can be ascertained (Fig 1), but they are barely visible, shallow and diffuse, and

nowhere more than 0.25m deep (though note that a number ofthe infilled shafts described by

Pull were scarcely any deeper before ploughing and bulldozing) They are well-spaced and

presumably represent some ofwhat may have been the better preserved examples before the

bulldozing episode. Shallow spoil heaps can also be discemed in places but apart from two

instances are too diffuse to Plot.

The depressions range from 6m to 12m in diameter, but given the recent destruction these

dimensions are meaningless beyond identilying the position ofshafts. Many are now oval in

plan and this too may reflect the direction ofploughing or bulldozing more than their original

form. Details of individual shafts are noted in Annex l. None of them correspond precisely

with those marked on Pull's Plan.

The depressions are placed in the west and south, between the false crest and the sunmit of

the ridge, and extend east as far as the farmtrack that runs north to south along the spine ofthe

ridge. An air photograph ofthe area taken before 1953, and probably before 1950 (Ratcliffe-

Densham & Ratcliffe-Densham 1953 ) suggests that there is some order to the site but this can

no longer be detected on the ground.

In the south-east, only a few metres from the farmtrack, a mound 0.3rn high partially covers

two shallow depressions. Only its bulk differentiates it from the other shallow spoil heaps'

Pull notes a barrow in this position, his no. 3, which he described as being lft (0 3m) high lfthis mound is indeed Barrow 3, then it is the only remaining feature which can be identified

on Pull's plan, in which case it survives today to a height similar to that recorded by Pull prior

to excavation.

The Air Photograph transcriPtion

The vertical air photographs clearly show at least 80 individual mineshafts in an area 240m

by 90m (Fig 2). The shafts positioned on the plot are widely spaced, and some must be

obscured by material spread from the spoilheaps. Assuming that the area was as densely

packed with shafts as Pull's plan suggests, and that some shafts were Iikely to remain invisible

on the surface, then his total number may be an underestimate. A discrete area of light

coloured soil at TQ09430878, is thought to represent the barrow noted above (Pull's barrow

no 3). Details of methods employed and photographs consulted are available in the

transcription report (see Annex 5).

4.

Discussion

Despite the extensive nature of Pull's excavations at Blackpatch, the extant records are

patchy, with only selective information being recorded Furthemlore, knowledge of Pull's

excavation techniques is very limited. Photographs seem to exist only for shaft l, while the

only known section drawings are ofshafts I and 2. Subterranean plans survive only for shafts

1,2,5 arrd7, while with the exception ofshaft l, notes and descriptions are often minimal'

Nevertheless the field survey aDd air transcription evidence coupled with the excavation

records that do survive permit a number of observations to be made.

It seems possible that extraction commenced on the west and south sides ofthe Iidge where

the flint outcropped. There is no surface evidence of quarrying there, but the remains ofsuch

activity could have been easily destroyed by cultivation. At present, the full extent of

extraction remains problematic. shaft 6, in the northern part of the site, lacked galleries,

while Shaft 5, on the eastem limit ofthe mined area, had no flint seam, and thus no galleries,

on its eastern side. Both cases perhaps suggest that the flint seam had faulted, or was Irot

continuous. Certainly, it appears unlikely that mining extended eastwards beyond the summit

ofthe ridge. However, the evidence from the excavations of the 'barows' certainly indicates

that mining-related activities took place further to the north. Pull's Barrow 2 appears to have

covered a shaft - indeed, the'barrow'may actually have been the surrounding spoil Similarly

Barrow 4, outlying even fufiher to the north, may also represent a trial shaft'

pull's plan of the site shows shafts of various sizes in no particular order, but with small

examples alongside large ones. Some shafts were positioned very close to each other' His

shaft 3, for example, was separated from its neighbour to the west by no more than I ft (0'3m)

ofchalk (Pull 1927), and the Air Photograph transcription shows some shafts that appear to

be almost linked. Apart from Shaft 1, which measures some 5 lm across' the excavated

examples are all of similar dimensions, being between 3m and 3.6m in diameter, rather small

when compared to the shafts at Cissbury which reached up to 36m in diameter' Scrutiny of

Pull's plan suggests that there may be no more than four or five others that approach the

diameter of shaft I , although the RCHME plan records shafts up to 10m across However, this

lack of uniformity does at least provide some evidence to suggest either diflering extraction

practices over a long span of time, or that the site was used on an ad y'roc basis rather than by

groups of serni-specialist miners, or both.

The seam appears to have been at a relatively shallow depth. On the surface, the depressions

are now no more than 0.25m deep, but when excavated Shafts l, 2 and 7 all bottomed out at

just over 3 m with Shaft 3 in the centre of the m ined area at 3.6m. No measurement is provided

for Shaft 4 which lies close to the southern edge ofthe exploited area, where shallower shafts

might be expected, but Shaft 6 in the north-west was only 1.8m deep, and there appears to

have been no attempt to exploit deeper seams

The material was extracted from the seams by means ofgalleries excavated from the base of

most shafts, and it apPears likely that in each case as much ofthe flint was extracted as safety

5.

allowed. Goodman et als (1924) plan of Shaft I shows thin walls and sometimes single

pillars ofchalk left to support the roof. Pull commented that the galleries of Shaft 2were'very

complicated', and shafts 7 and 8 were said to have 'extensive ramifying galleries ertending

from the base and connecling with neighbouring shafts '. In the case of Shaft 7 there were

eight separate galleries. Occasionally there is evidence that care was taken not to break

through into adjacent workings, while in galleries ll and VII small apertures, too small to

permit access, cut through into neighbouring galleries. Elsewhere, Pull noted the lack ofgalleries on one side ofa shaft and pointed out that by tapping the chalk wall it was possible to

determine the presence of workings which had already exploited that area. ln the

subterranean plans, the galleries appear to run for no great distance. In shaft l, for example,

galleries extended for only 3m, although in Shaft 7 they were very much longer, one

extending for some 7m. Both ofthese shafts are in the north-east where the ground rises, and

where gallery mining might be considered more efficient than the sinking of further shafts.

Some of the shafts may have been partially backfilled almost immediately with spoil from

another shaft. One, situated adiacent to shaft 3 was reported as being completely filled with

rubble. Shaft 2 was two-thirds filled, although th€ section drawing shows four different

rubble layers that may mark different events. Shaft 6 was half-fitled with rubble, while the

filling ofShaft 7 appears to have involved a number ofepisodes that included the placing ofa

cremation deposit between two layers of chalk one-third of the way down the profile, and a

flint 'working floor' two-thirds of the way down, each deposit occurring between layers of

rubble. Other shafts, in particular those with overlying 'barrows', ie Shafts l, 3 and 8, were

filled to the brim with chalk rubble. Iftheir overlying mounds were indeed barrows, it may be

that this deliberate filling was carried out much Iater in order to provide a stable base lor

mound construction.

A single radiocarbon determination for Blackpatch was obtained during the early [970s as

part of the British Museum's programme of dating flint mines. The determination of

3140+ 150 bc (BM-290) was produced from an antler pick recovered by Pull from one of the

galleries belonging to Shaft no. 4 (Holgate l99l , 3 9). The determination corre lates with those

from other Sussex mines obtained during the same programme, and together these suggest

that flint mining on the South Downs began during the early 4th millennium BC. However,

caution should be applied to this apparent chronological horizon, as each site has been dated

by single C14 assays on, in some cases, poorly provenanced material Recent comments on

the dates obtained for material fiom Grimes Graves at around the same time, and under the

same conditions, are also worth bearing in mind (Ambers, ppl00-108 in Longworth and

Varndell 1996). Furthermore, Shaft 4 at Blackpatch is located towards the southern €dge of

the mined area, and it has already been suggested above that this may have been one of the

earliest areas to be exploited.

However, studies ofthe published and extant lithic material from Blackpatch have tended to

support this early dating (Pye 1968, Gardiner 1988), and consequently a view has emerged

which places Neolithic flint mining on the South Downs almost wholly within the 4th

millennium BC (eg Bradley and Edmonds 1993, 3'7), and later Neolithic and Bronze Age

activity is explained as the scavenging ofearlier spoil-heaps (Drewett 1988, 79). There are

some difficulties with this, particularly as far as Blackpatch is concemed. For example, it

implies that all the axes recovered from such sites are early in date; that the upper levels of

6.

shaft fills and their contents are very much later in date than the shafts themselves, which

must therefore have contained little immediate backfilling; and that the available radiocarbon

determinations provide a fair indication ofthe chronological range ofthe flint mining.

As far as the context of individual items is concerned, insufficient information appears in

Pull's published and unpublished papers in order to ascertain whether thete are clear and

repeated patterns in the stratigraphical location ofpostulated early' and ' late' m aterial within

shaft fills. Gardiner's (1988, 1260f0 summary of the extant material suggests that such

information is no longer recoverable. As a result, the length of time over which flint

extraction occuffed at Blackpatch hinges primarily on the relationship between the 'barrows'

and the shafts. Pull clearly felt that there was good evidence in favour of a broad

contemporaneity between the two, and that the burials were of miners, although this

interpretation was influenced by contemporary ideas about the Neolithic and Early Bronze

Age in southern England. However, if we are to lollow more recent opinion about the

southem flint mines, there is a clear problem to be ovetcome at Blackpatch conceming the

evidence for Collared Urn and Beaker-associated activity.

As noted below (Annex l) there is good evidence to show that some ofthe'barrows'overlay

mineshafts. Pull's plan of Banow I shows that it covered both Shaft 3 and another

immediately adjacent shaft, as well as partially overlapping his Shafts 3a and 4a. The

RCHME survey suggests a similar situation for Banow 3, which appears to overlie

RCHME's shafts 7 and 10. This is an interesting ocourrence which recalls the frequent

associations of causewayed enclosures and other Neolithic monuments with later round

banows, though by itself this sirnply confirms the acsepted chronology. However, Pull

records a shaft appearing to cut the edge of Barrow 12, which if correct implies that this

mound at least was present before mining ceased.

The composition of some mounds is said by Pull to be of mined flint, and there are other

consistent features in their construction (Annex l) Some are composed ofwhat might be

described as flint mine spoil: Barrow I - chalk blocks and rubble; Barrow 4 - predominantly

flint; Barrow 6 -'mined' and surface flint; Barrow 8 - large 'mined' flints; Banow 12 - chalk

rubble, chalk blocks and flint; and Banows l, 3, 5, 6, 7 and I I which all feature a closely-set

capping of flint nodules. The ring ditch, 'barrow' 9, also featured a layer of 'mined' flint

nodules sealing the lower ditch deposits. It is particularly of interest to note that the

occurrence ofnodules, chalk rubble and other 'mined' material is not restricted to the barrows

closest to the known mineshafts.

It has already been suggested that the mound of Barrow I and the filling of Shaft 3 might

suggest a single episode, although the evidence needed to evaluate this suggestion is not

extant. Ifthis were the case, the act of backfilling the shaft is effectively dated to the Eally

Bronze Age by the presence of Collared Urn sherds accompanying the cremation deposit

within the mound. However, while it seems possible that the infilling of immediately

adjacent shafts had occurred prior to the digging of Shaft 3, raising the possibility of a

relatively late date for the shaft in the mining sequence, the relationship between the shaft fill

and the mound remains problematic. The mound though is almost certainly Early Bronze

Age, something which is reinforced by similarities shared with other'barrows' at Blackpatch'

The vertical profile ofthe top ofthe shaft suggests little weathering, something apparently

7.

supported by the lack of a silt layer between mound and shaft fill. However, there are

altemative scenarios to consider - for example, any rainwash could have percolated down

through the rubble fi11 ofthe shaft.

Thus there could have been a short interval only between the digging of the shaft and the

construction ofthe mound, but this cannot be clearly demonstrated. However, it is also worth

bearing in mind the possible source ofthe flint nodules used to cap the mound. Ifthere was a

clear chronological gap between shaft and mound, then the implication is that a considerable

quantity of unused, mined nodules had been lying around at the site for a period of maybe

1000 years or more. Pull presumably distinguished these nodules from the Iocal surface flint

by their unweathered chalky cortex. An altemative is the possibility that the mound was

capped with nodules extracted from an adjacent shaft, which could even have been dug

expressly for this purpose, as pafi of the activities associated with the interment of the

individual whose cremated remains were deposited within the mound. However, this would

still leave unresolved the problem of the source of nodules overlying burial deposits which

were not associated with mine shafts or extraction pits (see below).

In the case ofBarrow 3, a pit apparently dug to obtain flint was backfilled and a low mound

constructed over it, again with no apparent distinction between mound and shaft fill. The

relationship ofthe inhumations to each other is unclear - they are linked primarily by burial

posture and the lack of evidence for disturbance to the flinCcapped mound. However,

whereas the evidence from Barrow I seems to point to an Early Bronze Age date, the artefacts

associated with the Barrow 3 interments suggest a much earlier date, most notably the leaf

arrowhead in direct contact with the first inhumation. A possible solution is that the

cremation deposit, mound and nodule capping represent a later addition to a partially

backfilled shaft which had already been utilised for the deposition ofhuman remains Pull's

description of the position of the leaf arrowhead and other items appears to rule out the

possibility that some ofthese items could be residual.

The apparent isolation of Barrow 4 from the others and from the mines is also problematic,

situated as it is at the head ofthe adjacent ridge (the one containing the Blackpatch Middle

Bronze Age settlement site - see below) and may possibly relate to activity in that direction'

Pull makes no mention of any possible features between the mines and the banow, and the

nature ofthe vegetation cover at the time is unclear. Thus its isolation may be more apparent

than real in terms of surface indications. Altematively, along with the content and features

beneath some ofthe other mounds, it may serve to indicate the true extent of flint extraction at

Blackpatch. The temptation is to interpret the pit as having been dug to obtain flint rather than

specifically for burial because of its size and depth, although grave pits of similar dimensions

are by no means unknown from beneath prehistoric barrows. In addition, the pit seems not to

have encountered a flint seam. As far as dating is concerned, the human remains and finds

ftom the flint layer in the pit might indicate a Neolithic rather than later date. The Beaker

sherd found near the mound is of little value beyond indicating late Neolithic/Early Bronze

Age activity in the area.

Barrow 5, unlike othermounds decribed here, does not appear to conceal an obvious possible

source for the flint nodules used as capping. Pull considers the low mound to represent

mining spoil, primarily because of the presence of chalk rubble in a mound which neither

8.

concealed nor was surrounded by a ditch, and also because ofthe floorstone' cappitg The

lack of any visible hollow on the surface in the surrounding area led him to assume that the

material had been brought c200ft (6 1m) from the m ine area to the west. Whatever the origin

of the nodules, the association of flint capping and Collared Urn is clearly demonstrated,

although again there is a problematic occurence of ieaf arrowheads. without them there

would be little problem in assigning an Early Bronze Age date to the barrow and its contents.

The obvious possibilities are that Pull inconectly identified these objects, or that they are

'residual' among the material used to construct the low mound, or they represent a very rare

but not unknown late occurence of leaf arrowhead

Barrow 6 again raises difficulties by concealing a further leaf arrowhead as well as later

material, all in uncertain association, although on this occasion the pottery was Beaker mther

than Collared Urn. As with Barrow 5, the pottery probably represents the best chronological

indicator, although the date range for Beakers is fairly iengthy (c2500- l700BC - see Kinnes

et qt 1991).lt is worth noting that Pull's archive contajns two different section drawings of

this Barro\,r', one showing the pit to be flat-bottomed, the other showing an irregular bottom

which is deepest in the centre. No flint seam appears to have been present, although again the

mound appears to have contained miIred material as well as a capping ofnodules However,

the contents ofthe pit and part ofthe rnound appears to have comprised a sizeable deposit of

mostly bumt material.

. Barrow 7 again links the nodule capping ofa low mound with Collared Urns, although on this

occasion the interment is an inhumation rather than a cremation, and the burial posture is

reminisaent ofthe leaf arrowhead-accompanied burial in Barrow 3 Again, the source ofthe

mined material is unclear, but may have been the mine area to the west.

Barrow 8 is again some distance from the mines, yet features apparently mined material as

well as Collared Um sherds. However, on this occasion no human remains were found Note

also that there was no flint nodule layer.

Barrow 9 is not a barro\Y at all, but can be grouped loosely among other ring ditch/hengifom

enclosures ofthe late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age. The presence ofeollared Urn and Beaker

sherds within the primary fill ofthe ditch broadly confirms this dating, as well as providing a

Iink with several ofthe 'barrows'. ln faat it could be argued that this monument replaced the

mines as a focus for burial monuments. The flint nodules provide a material link with the

mines, ifnot an actual link with mining. It is unfortunate that so little detail sulvives ofPull's

excavation techniques, as it is not clear ifhe fully excavated this feature He certainly appears

to have cleared out the full ditch circuit, but it is not clear if he excavated the external bank.

As for the enclosed area, there is a possibility that in treating the site as a potential barrow, he

only trenched across the centre in a search for a primary burial

Russell (1996, 28-9) has included this site within a discussion of 'anomalous' Late

Neolithic/Early Bronze Age enclosures in south-east England, and particularly in Sussex He

too makes a comparison with henges, though follows Harding and Lee (1987,34-5) in

regarding the lack of an obvious entrance as a problem. However, he feels that this site along

with the other 'barrows, makes it clear that mining and non-domestic activity occurred

contemporaneously into the Beaker period.

9.

Barrow 10 is equally anomalous, but for other reasons. Although its plesence gives a certain

symmetry to the arrangement ofmound north-east ofthe mines, its construction and contents

seem to support the idea that it the probable early Medieval inhumation is primary rather than

secondary, and that the mound is of similar date. However, Pull's reference to 'disturbance'

beneath the mound is worth noting, as the relationship between this and the grave-pit is

uncertain. It may just represent some surface flint digging fortuitously preserved beneath a

later mound, but this is highly speculative, and the necessary detail is lacking from Pull's

archive.

Banow I l, the furthest from the mined area, again links the nodule capping ola low mound

with a Collared Um-associated interment. ln fact, along with solre ofthe other 'Barrows', the

lack of height of the mound is worth noting Pull describes it as being 9" high' yet this

included the flint nodule capping plus an inverted collared urn between two slabs oftabular

flint as well as any mound material.

Barrow 12 would appear, initially at least, to provide good evidence for later mining,

although again there are difficulties with the available information. Pull observed no break

between the mound and the infill of Shaft 8. Furthermore the shaft was near-vertically sided

at the top, indicating little ifany weathering ofthe sides.

The posture ofthe inhumations is reminiscent ofothers at Blackpatch, while the presence of

two inhumations and a scattered third interment resembles the situation beneath Barrow 3'

Pull's belief that the first inhumation was disturbed by the second might suggest several

events over a period of time. In this respect it is worth highlighting the fact that the mound is

centred over the burials and not the shaft. On the available evidence there is nothing to algue

strongly infavourofan Early Bronze Age date ratherthan a much earl ier Neol ithic one lnthe

latter case, the absence of a flint nodule capping is interesting, as this might confirm that such

a feature is a 'late' one.

More intriguing with regard to relative chronology is the relationship between the mound and

neighbouring shafts. Pull argued that the mound had been partially cut away by the digging of

an adjacent shaft, although it is possible that the mound had partially eroded into a pre-

existing shaft. Mining spoil partially overlay the mound, and also partially covered Floor 3,

whichitselfimpingedonthebarrowmound.AllthiSevidenceprovidesstrongsupporting,but by no means conclusive, evidence for mining subsequent to the construction of the

barrow. In this respect it is unfortunate that chronologically sensitive artefacts were absent

from the burials, particularly as there is nothing about them which would strongly favour a

late date rather than an earlier one

Of the other discoYeries ofhuman remains, those in Shafts 4 and 7 are reminiscent of some

the barrow interments, but are effectively undated. The shaft'l cremalion mighl be considered

a rare early Neolithic occurrence but given the evidence from elsewhere on site one might

take the view that it is a Bronze Age deposit Floor 2 is more interesting, in that a fairly

discrete deposit ofcremated remains was associated with Beaker sherds, and appears to have

predated the formation of a fairly substantial 'working floor" which itself was partially

coveredbyadepositofminingspoilatoneend,andwhichitselfpost.datesaninfilledmine

10.

shaft at another end. This would seem to be a clear indication that mining was occurrlng

within the main mine complex at a late date Again, however, the evidence is not conclusive,

and the detail required to evaluate the possibility of Late Neolithic or Early Bronze Age

mining at Blackpatch does not exist within the extant archive.

Assessing the overall chronology of the Blackpatch complex, and in particular the flint

mining, remains problematic. The earlier Neolith ic Cl4 date clearly indicates activity at this

period, although the date has a sizeable error range, and was obtained at the same time as

some ofthe Grime's Graves Cl4 determinations against which question marks have recently

been placed (Ambers in Longworth & Vamdell 1996, 100-108). However, in addition to the

scientific and artefactual evidence for 4th millennium BC mining, the presence of probable

Neolithic funerary activity argues for a more than utilitarian function for the site. Particularly

noteworthy here are the two inhumations in Barrow 3, associated with a platform ofnodules'

three flint axes, a leaf arrowhead and a boar's tusk. The incomplete skeleton from Barrow 4

and the cremated child with flint axes in Barrow I might also be further examples

Later activity, associated with Collared Ums and also Beaker sherds, is particularly evident

in a number of the banows, particularly those away from the visible mines, and appears to

support the idea that the capping of mounds with flint nodules belongs to this horizon of

activity. pull seemed quite certain that they were nodules of mined flint. The possibility that

they were mined in the late Neolithic or Early Bronze Age is clearly worth considering,

though currently is incapable of proof. The evidence provided by the stratigraphic

relationships between shafts, mounds and working floors is hardly conclusive but provides

useful support. Likewise the presence of mining debris in some ofthese late mounds

The nature of this later activity is any case far from utilitarian, involving as it does the

construction ofburial and ceremonial monuments. Ifthe associated nodules wele obtained at

this time, then the flint extraction itself may have been primarily for funerary purposes rather

than implement manufacture. Thus there may have been a link ofsorts between the mines and

those buried in the barrows, although this would have been rather different to the link

envisaged by Pu ll.

The evidence for further activity dufing this period may be supported by Pull's discoveries in

the so-called 'dwelling' sites immediately south east ofBarrows 6-9. Unfortunately the nature

of these features is unknown, but the cache of scrapers, the possible Beaker sherds and the

other artefacts are intriguing. The possibility that some ofthese finds were residual must be

borne in mind, as must the uncertainty overthe pottery identification. However, there must be

a possibility that these features represent the remains of huts, perhaps terraced into the

hillside, although Pull mentions no post holes and in fact provides very linle information

about these features at all.

The nature of subsequent activity is even more obscure. The Middle Bronze Age enclosure

(see below) at Blackpatch was situated no less than 400m to the west. Its bank was revetted

with tabular flint likely to have come from a flint s€am rather than being found loose on the

surface, though whether this represents cont€mporary mining or the exploitation of surface

spoil associated with the mines is debatable. The two circular dePre,(sioll't' at the site also

featured a large quantity of flint within their respective fills. The pottery from the site, as is

11.

typical of the period, was also heavily flinrgritted The presence of Deverel-Rimbury

material should also b€ noted at Grimes Graves, while small rectangular enciosures similar to

that at Blackpatch are present at Cissbury and Easton Down, as well as at nearby Hanow Hill.

The 'Celtic' field system noted around the Blackpatch Middle Bronze Age enclosure may

also have extended to the area of the flint mines and obscured detail at the edges A few

Romano-British sherds incorporated in the topsoil over shafts I and 2 imply some nearby

activity of that period.

The final phase ofactivity atthe site is represented by the five inhumations ofprobable early

Medieval date. All five were male extended inhumations, orientated east-west with heads to

the west. All were laid on their backs. All three in Barrow l2 had their hands folded on the

pelvis. The position of the hands is unclear in the case of Barrow 2, although the left hand

purportedly held an iron knife, which may suggest that the left arm at least was by the side. In

Barrow 10, the left arm was extended by the side while the right ann was crossed over the

body towards the left thigh, which had been severed half-way along its length and lay at an

oblique angle to the pelvis. The Barrow 2 inhumation and the most northerly ofthe three in

Barow 12 lacked skulls, while the Barrow l0 burial was positioned with its face looking

upwards, its mouth open and filled with clay.

The inhumation in Barrow 2 was interred in an east-west grave pit cut into the body of the

mound, and disturbing the pit beneath it. Those in Barrow l2 are simply said to have been

inserted into the mound and no details ofgrave structure are recorded That beneath Barrow

10 appears to be a prirnary interment over which the mound has been constructed.

The dating ofthese inhumations to the early Medieval period is by no means certain, but this

seems the most likely option. The earlier part of that period in particular is noted for the

insertion of inhumations into extant prehistoric monuments, usually round barrows The

evidence of barrow construction, and the principal features of burial rite, also support this

attribution. However, it is difficultto bemore specific interms ofdate and interpretation The

absence ofgrave goods and the east-west orientation are not padicularly sensitive indicators

of date, while the severed femur, the two missing skulls and clay-filled mouth suggest that

lhis is nol an ordinary cemetery.

M eth o d an d Acknow le dg em ents

The survey was carried out in February 1995 by Martyn Barber Qnd David Field using a lL/ild

TC 2000 Electronic Theodolite with integral EDM Data wqs captured on a GRE 3

datalogger and plottedvid ComPaq computer on a Calcomp 3024 plotter. The resuking plan

was inkedfor archive by Trevor Pearson. Carolyn Dyer and Simon Crutchley prepared the

Air Photograph transcript in February 1996. The report was researched and prepared by

Martyn Barber and David Field, and edited by Peter Topping who led the proiect. The site

archive has been deposited in the Nqtional Monuments Record, Kemble Drive, Swindon SN2

2GZ (NMR nos. rQ 00 NE 5, rQ 00 NE 43).

12.

The RCHME is groteful to Mr I Jenkins ofMyrtlegrove Farmfor permission to cqfty out the

survey, to Dr Sally Il hite at lYorthing Museum for access lo the John Pull archive, and to the

staff of the 14/est Sussex Record Offce fot access ttt relevant historical docunentdtion-

13.

Annex I

The Excavations

The flint mines were discovered by John Pull in 1922, though the report ofthe first season's

work suggested that they had previously been pointed out by CH Goodman (Goodman et al

1924, 71). Pull was a Worthing-based Post Office worker self-taught in both archaeology and

geology whose rather difficult relationship with the archaeological 'establishment' in Sussex

(White 1995) has resulted in much ofhis work on the South Downs remaining poorly known

The problems seem to have begun at Blackpatch, which appears to have been his first major

excavation.

Follow ing h is discovery ofthe site in 1922, John Pu ll began ex cavating one ofthe shafts early

that summer. On August 5th, 1922, the excavation was taken over by the Worthing

Archaeological Society, with Pull superintending the work. A report on that first season was

published by a committee of the Wofihing Archaeological Society consisting of CH

Goodman, M Frost, E Curwen and EC Currven (Goodman e t al 1924) Thebackground to the

preparation ofthat report had considerable repercussions for Pull and the publication ofhis

subsequent work at Blackpatch and other sites on the Sussex Downs Pull's original report of

the first year,s work had been rejected by the committee. Pull resigned from the worthing

Archaeological Society in protest (as did Herbert Toms, among others), and along with

several of his colleagues he publicly disassociated himself from the published report, most

notably in the following letter to the Worthing Herald in 1924 (signed by Pull plus W

Dillaway, WH Watkins, and H Bunce):

'Sit, hNing with mixed fee!ings carefully perused the canlents ofan exlraordinary report on

excqvations at Blackpatch, 1922, preparerl on behalfo;fthe worthing Archaeological society

by an editorial committee and published in a recent issue of the Sussex Archaeological

Colleclions, we feel that despite our QdmirQtion of this literary effort we as serious

archaeologists should point out thdt thi; record is not as recognised by the authorised

excavatorc.

One can quite appreciqte the most A)orthy motives which movedthe Worthing Archaeological

Society to make some permanent record of that portion of the work in which its members

assisted. However, as this was considered a scientific excovation we are aftxious to know why

the record before us was not based on the exact notes and measurements made by the director

ofexcavations as the work proceeded

The record oftheworkdone prior to the advent ofthe Ilorthing Archaeological Society must

of necessity be pure fction, goodfction we Qdmil, but nevertheless - fclionIl/e yield to no-one in our admirationfor the editorial committee in producing the undoubted

work of art, especially corcidering the artistic mannet with \a'hich it iSnored dll necessary

and no doubt troublesome data.

A comparison of this record with the official report will be sulfrcient proof of the arlistic and

literaryvalue oftheformet, but as we are not artists, but merely dull archdeologists' we ale

surprised to obser'te that this workwqs accepted by a scienttrtc body' It is common knowledge

14.

that the Sussex Archaeological Society takes great pride in lhe accuracy ofdata appearing in

its proceedings ond therefore in view of the fact that the unauthorised report has already

been submitted to them we can only trust thqt in the interests of scientifrc truth it will lqke

steps lo expunge all purely artistic efforts of this kindfrom ils collection\ '

While the Worthing Archaeological Society moved across to Harrow Hill to investigate the

flint mines there, Pull remained at Blackpatch until 1930. However, his differences with the

local and county societies led to the use of alternative, local outlets for the publication of

reports ofhis work, such as the Worthing Herald and the Sussex County Magazine. Although

these articles often contained considerable detail, their contents inevitably escaped the

attention of many of his contemporaries as well as later generations of archaeologists. The

best-known account of his work at Blackpatch, his 1932 book 'The Flint Miners ofBlackpatch', was aimed at the general reader, a point clearly not appreciated by those who

gave it such a rough reception. For example, Piggott and Clark (1932), who had first met

while working on Cecil Curwen's excavations at the Trundle in 1928, claimed that "while we

recognize that the site must have yielded most valuable evidence' it is presented so

unscientifically that we cannot utilize it." Pull died in 1960 with no detailed account ofhis

work on the South Downs haYing appeared. However, a sutnnlary account appeared in Pye's

(1968) unpublished thesis, while Gardiner's (1988) unpublished PhD thesis included

tabulated lists of artefacts.

The site is described in the first report (Goodman et al 1924) as consisting of '60 lo 100

saucer-shapecl depressions, clustered closely together, and varying between six inches and

threefeet in depth. Neqr lhe centre ofthis group, which is comma-shaped' 270 paces in length

and g0 in greqtest breadth, is a symmetric(tl mound, 15 feet (measurements are in imPerial

where recorded as such by the excavators) in didmele\ with a cupped summil. 'Pull himself is

said by Holgate( 1991, 39) to have recorded 64 shafts in all, although the OS (NMR no TQ 00

NE 5) quote a total of 100, and an unpublished plan by Pull appears to show some 120'

The excavations 1 922-30

The primary source for the following account is Pull (1932), with additional information

drawn from Pull's numerous newspaper articles and unpublished archive (the latter housed in

Worthing Museum) and other sources as appropriate.

Shaft l, excavated in 1922, was situated towards the centre ofthe visibly mined area,'a few

yards north-east ofthe mound'. On the surface it was represented by a large saucer-shaped

depression surrounded by an irregular 'ridge' ofchalk rubble which stood up to 3 feet above

the natural ground level at the lip ofthe shaft. The southem halfofthe shaft fill was excavated

to a depth ofaround 6 feet, a point at which the entrance to a gallery on the south east (Gallery

IV - see below) hadjust become visible. It was at this point that members ofthe Worthing

Archaeological Society became involved, removing the remainder ofthe fill on the northern

side (the north east quadrant first, followed by the north west) to a depth of 6 feet. Then, on

the grounds thal'it was deemed advisable to expose and enler each gallery on one day, to

obviate the chance ofmischievous persons entering them before the excav.ttors'(Goodmat\ et

15.

al 1 924, 73), subsequent digging out of the shaft fi ll was continued in front of each gallery in

tum (in the order Gallery I, Il, III, IV, Vl, VII, V).

Thus when finally cleared the shaft proved to be roughly circular, a maximum of l7 feet in

diameter, 1 l feet deep (Goodman et al1924,73, Pull lg32,35thelattercitesameandepthof

l0% feet), the depth ofthe first and only seam offlint encountered, and with seven galleries

radiating out from its base. An eighth ftole' represented an opening into a gallery belonging

to the shaft to the north. The sides of the shaft were described as being vertical

coodman et al (1924, 73-77) divided the fill ofthe shaft into two main layers, and described

them as follows:

(l)thelower4ft(1.2m)to5ft(1.5m)featuredatrack'oflargechalkblocks'pileduponthefloor in the centre of the shaft opposite the longer galleries, but not extending outwards to

block the entrances to these galleries. Around, but not between, these piles of chalk blocks

was loose chalk rubble. Finds from this '/ayer'(all 5 ft ( l.5m) of it) included flint nodules,

some small 'zests'of flint flakes, plus antler fragments and tines. Flint implements were

scarce, although the two halves ofa broken flint axe were found, loft to 12 ft (3m to 3.6m)

apart, on opposite sides of the shaft. An axe was also found lying on the floor of the shaft

beside the entrance to Gallery V. Charcoal was noted on the piles of chalk blocks

immediately outside Galleries I and IV. Fragments of a pig skull were scattered throughout

the south-west quadrant ofthe shaft fill. There was no calcined flint or pottery.

(2) the upper shaft fill again featured chalk blocks within chalk rubble, but this time the

blocks appeared to have been thrown in from above, in contrast to those in the lower layer

which appeared never to have been removed llom the shaft at all. Also within the fill were

'numerous' flint impleme\ls 'in all st(lges of manufacture', plus more 'nests ofJlates'. Some

more antler fragments were found, one still with part of the deer skull attached. In addition,

there was also -a

small, Jlattened cylinder of chalk' c 3% inches long by lV" inches max

diameter.

At the top of the fill, immediately beneath the turf, were calcirrcd flints; a few coarse

potsherds; ox, pig bones, plus twelve or fifteen jaws of sheep complete with teeth - no other

sheep bones were present; and two fragments of Lower Greensand ironstone; along with

flintworking debris and flint implements including an axe, plus a quartzite hammer-stone'

The topsoil included a variety of more recent material including Rornano-British potsherds

Pull ( 1932, 37-40) provides a slightly different interpretation ofthe fill, arguing that the shaft

had been deliberately filled to within 3 feet of the top with several layers of chalk debris

which could be clearly distinguished in section. "Tilts of large chalk blocks wele interrupted

by layers offlint flakes, small chalk, and one thin band ofcharcoal. The material at the top of

the infill he describ ed as a'temporqry liy ing Jl oor" the material having been deposited within

the hollow above the infill prior to development ofthe overlying topsoil

to-

Ihe Galleries

According to Pull ( 1932, 35), the seven gallery entrances averaged 2.5ft in height, whilst the

galleries themselves varied in width from 3 to 7ft (0.9m to 2.1m), and 5 to 30ft ( 1.5m to 9.I m)

in length. Some remained clear of debris in places, though for the most part they contain€d

either masses of chalk rubble or neatly stacked chalk blocks. Occasional quantities of fine

splinters of flint indicated that extraction of nodules could require considerable force at

times.

Gallery I - the first opened, located on the north-west side ofthe shaft. It is described as being

fairly free of debris. Small blocks of chalk were carefully stacked against the left wall Asmall quantity of charcoal was found at one point on these blocks. Several pick-holes were

observed in the walls ofthe gallery. Fragments offour antler picks were found lying on the

gallery floor.

Gallery ll - on the west side ofthe shaft, and described by Goodtnan et al (1924) as containing

little of interest except for two small square openings which connect with galleries belonging

to a neighbouring shaft. The openings were at floor level and just large enough to admit the

arm'.

Gallery III - on the south-west side ofthe shaft, this seems only to have been started and

never continued'. Again described as containing nothing of interest. A pit 2ft deep had been

dug into the floor ofthe shaftjust in front ofthe gallery entrance.

Gallery IV - the entrance is on the south-east side ofthe shaft, but the gallery itselfruns north-

south. tt was filled with chalk blocks and rubble to within a foot ofits roof, with the exception

of its southem end. Again, small chalk blocks had been stacked along one wall (the left). A

broken antler pick was recovered ftom beneath one pafiicularly large chalk block.

Gallery V - the entrance is on the eastem side of the shaft, and the, gallery runs south-east

before meeting a gallery from an adjacent shaft (slightly north-east ofShaft 1) at right angles.

Although the entrance of Gallery V was separated from that of Gallery IV at its entrance by a

narrow pillar of chalk, they were in fact connected behind this pillar. Wlren discovered this

connecting passage was entirely blocked with stacked debris. At the point where Gallery V

meets the Gallery from the adjacent shaft was a pit dug into the floor some fifleen inches

(0.38m) deep. A small pit 2%ft (0.7m) deep had also been dug in the floor of the shaft just

outside the entrance to Gallery V. No finds are reported from Galleries or pits.

Gallery VI - the entrance is on the north-east side of the shaft. An antler pick was found

among the debris in the entrance area. The published plan (Goodman et al (1924) plate l)appears to show a pit outside the entrance to this Gallery, although this feature is not

commented on in the text.

Gallery VII - on the north side of the shaft. This Gallery has two small openings which

connect with Galleries belonging to another shaft. Though larger, these are comparable to the

17.

openings in Gallery IL On the eastern side ofthe entmnce to Gallery VII, 'a small undercut

buttress ofchalkprojects into the shaft.'

Pull ( 1932, 36) suggested that the reason for the lack ofgalleries emanating from the southem

side ofthe shaft was the presence ofgalleries in that direction belonging to adjacent shafts

He was 'able to ascertain, by sounding with a wooden rod, thal the chalk wall was here very

thin, and concealed galleries came toward and almost through it fron the south.'Likewise he

attributed the shorter length ofthe galleries on the westem side to the fact that Shaft I posf

dated the galleried shaft lying in that direction.

The report on the flint implements from the shaft (Goodman etal1924,83-91) appears to be

restricted to a discussion of 150 implements 'preserved in one of lhe lodges of Arundel

Costle',lhe Duke of Norfolk being owner ofthe land containing the Blackpatch site. Sixty-

one of these are described as 'axes in |arious stages of mdnufacture; vety few are perfect,

some are broken, and the maiority can only be described as rough-outs'. Overall, despite

comparisons between various implements from the excaYation as Mousterian or Acheulian

types, the report generally reflects an uncertainty over the date and cultural affiliations ofthe

site - it is noted, for instance, that 'most would clqim the celts as definitely Neolithic', and the

authors stress their belief that 'all the implenents found belong lo one period of culture'

The reporton the first year's work (Goodman et al 1924) is rounded offwith a section entitled

'General Considerations' written by the Curwens (pp94-l I l), essentially a review of the

general 'problem' of prehistoric flint mines. The general tone of the piece appears to be

against the Palaeolithic origins debate which centred around the then-ongoing excavations at

Grimes Graves. However, the Curwens avoid any explioit statement on the date of mining at

Blackpatch.

Shaft 2 - This shaft, excavated by Pull in 1923, was located 24 yards (21.9m) south of shaft 1.

It was represented on the surface by a shallow depression 9% ft (2.8m) in diameter and 3

inches (0.07m) deep. It was surrounded by five larger depressions The shaft fill is described

simply as consisting of(from th€ top):

- c lft (0.3m) depth oftopsoil; this included some Romano-British pottery;

- fine silt or rainwash, slightly coarser at base - 2%ft (7.3m);

- the remainder, to the bottom ofthe shaft, 'was filled with strafirted tilts or layers ofvarious-sized chqlk rubble and chalk blocks' (Pull 1932,42)

The shaft proved to be loft (3m) in d iameter at its mouth, decreas ing to 7ft (2. I m) at a depth

of6ft ( l.8m). The narrowing of width was partly due to the funnel-shaped nature ofthe upper

part ofthe shaft, but also due to the presence of 'sleps' proj ecting into the shaft. One crossed

the south-east comer of the shaft at a depth of 3ft (0.9m). Another, at a depth of 6ft ( I 8m),

projected into the shaft from the south, reducing the lower part ofthe shaft to a semi-circular

section 472ft (1.3m) wide max. The shaft was 1Oft 9in (3 lm) deep.

Five openings were uncovered at the base, four ofthem galleries, the fifth described as a hole

cut into the shaft in order to allow light into a gallery. The gallery system was described by

18.

Pull as ve4r complicated- The galleries ramifed in every direction, linking up shaft wilh

shaft and gallery with gallery, both with the systen belonging to Shaft no. 2 and with similar

complicated syslems of neighbouring pits, to the bases of which access wqs gained... (There)

had been considerable falls of roof in several places...So closed and interlocked were the

it'orkings that it was realized that the whole area in the neighbourhood rests merely upon thin

walls and slender isolated buttresses.' All the galleries, where they tumed at right angles to

their entmnces, had their walls pierced at regular intervats to allow light in from the shaft

Shafts 3 to 8 - These are all described very briefly by Pull (1932, 44).3,4, and 7 were

described as being of similar character to no. 2, roughiy circular, 'and had extensive

ramifuing galleries radialingfrom their base and connecling them with their neighbours.' Allare said to possess similar infilling and archaeological evidence.

Shaft 3 was dug adjacent to and \,r'est of a shaft which had been completely refilled with spoil.

The two shafts were separated at the top by j ust I ft (0.3 m) of so lid chalk. Shaft 3 was also the

shaft over which banow I had been constructed (see below). After excavation ofbarrow l,the shaft was excavated. It proved to be l2 ft (3.6m) deep with a number ofgalleries radiating

out from the base. The inhlling was apparently unstratified and yielded, as did the barrow

mound above it, antler fragments, flint implements and flakes (Pull 1927).

The top layer of fill of Shaft 4, - I foot (0.3 n) below the rqinwash', contajned fragments of a

human femur plus a lower jaw with some teeth still Present. These were identified as

belonging to 2 individuals, the thigh belonging to an adult and the jaw to a'very young

person'. Pull, assuming that any interment of human remains would have occurred with a

certain degree of formality and ceremony, interprets these as fragments of inhumations

disturbed by the mining activity, and therefore earlier than the mining ofshaft 4.

Shaft 7 (Pull & Sainsbury 1930d) was 1Oft (3m) deep and 12ft (3 6m) in diameter, with

entrances to eight galleries at its base. In the fill of Shaft ? ('tilts of chalk rubble thrown in qt

intervals from adjacent mines), about one third ofthe way down and between two layers of

chalk, was an interment comprising the cremated remains ofan individual, described by Pull

as'in situ, unclisturbed, ceremoniQl in character, and definitely-contemporary with the

mining.' The interment was placed centrally within the shaft, and cons isted of an 'oval layer

ofcharcoa! containing a small quanlity ofthoroughly cremated human bones and afew burnt

Jlints'. The sunounding chalk bore no traces ofburning. Accompanying the deposit were a

flint axe, a flint knife, a scraper, some flakes and bumt stone s, and a 'charm' of worked chalk

(see below).

About two-thirds ofthe way down the shaft, again between two layers of chalk, 'was a large

flint workshopJloor, piled withJlint nodules, Jlakes and inplements, and liltercd with animal

Dones', chiefly ox (Pull & Sainsbury 1930d).

Shaft 5 had an irregular elongated oval plan. It was 'well away from the crest ofthe hill, right

on the border of the ancient roed which Passes along the eastern edge of the mining area' and

its galleries were confined to its western side.

19.

Located at the northern edge ofthe pit area, shaft 6 is again described very briefly. The main

point to note is the abs€nce ofgalleries. No undercutting ofthe walls ofthe shaft was noted.

Pull carried out soundings ofthe walls, and suggested that the results also implied a lack of

galleries emanating from surrounding shafts. Pull & Sainsbury (1929d) add a few more

details. The shaft was oval with a minimum diameter of 1Oft (3m); the sides were vertical, and

the shaft 6ft ( I .8m) deep. The fill consisted of I ft (0.3m) of'surface mould'; then 2ft (0 6m)

of chalk silt, the lowest part of it filled with mollusca; then unstratified chalk rubble and

blocks including flint implements and broken antler tines. The mined seam was observed in

the walls of the shaft 3 inches (0.07m) above the bottom. Ten lumps of chalk described by

Pull as 'thong whiterers'were found at the bottom.

Sha1l 8 is not mentioned in Pull's book (Pull 1932) except in association with Barrow l2 (see

below), but is referred to in one of his articles for the Worthing Herald (Pull & Sainsbury

1930d). Situated between Floor 3 and Shaft 7, it too had an extensive gallery system at it base,

connecting with Shaft 7, among others. The shaft was filled with chalk rubble No other

details are supplied about the contents ofthe shaft. Barrow l2 was appalently erected overthe

shaft before any 'r(iinwash' hadaccumulated or top ofthe shaft fill.

Among the finds singled out for mention by Pull was a fragment of an oval-sectioned chalk

'cylinder' and another piece of carved chalk 'somewhal like the toe of a boot' from near the

bottom of shaft 7, plus a 'chalk cone with twisted base'from higher up in the fill From

Gallery I of this same shaft came another piece of carved chalk described as a 'spherical

chalk carving which appears to have been a sculpture, in the round, of a human head' (Pull

1932, 108 & plate l0). In addition to these and the cylinder from shaft I (noted earlier) were a

number ofother chalk items described by Pull as'charms'- worked chalk objects in a variety

ofshapes (egg-shaped, sqtare, 'cushion-shaped', heatr-shaped etc). These came from both

shatls, barrows and hut sites.

Flint implements are treated in a rather general manner within a chapter which discusses

material fiom all excavated areas, ie working floors, hut sites and barrows as well as the

shafts. Pye tabulated the material from Shaft t, which she regarded as probably being'fairly

representative of fhe whole si/e'. Axes and roughouts dominate -(73 out of l4l items),

although no quantification is provided ofthe numerous unretouched blades and flakes which

were encountered during excavation. The remainder ofthe quantified assemblage is made up

of scrapers, hammerstones, wedges, knives, points, cores and 'miscellaneous' lt is

interesting to compare these figures with the flint artefacts recovered from the barrows,

although again the true total ofworked flint artefacts remains unknown. Axes and roughouts

are again the largest category (l I out of 22+ items), the rest consisting of scrapers,

hammerstones, wedges, knives, arrowheads, cores and, once more' 'miscellaneous''

The'Flint WorkshoPs'

Pull located and examined four 'surface chipping floors' during the 1922-30 excavations

Floor I - located in the extreme south-west ofthe mined area, it was discovered by probing lt'partly occupied a ridge between the lips of three shafts' and was c 15ft (4 5m) in maximum

20.

extent and up to 3in (0.07m) deep. The main contents of the floor'were flakes, discarded

nodules, and broken or incomplete artefacts of flint, the iatter including 'several roughly

blocked-out axes', all resting directly on the ground surface. Part of the 'floor' was covered by

a small amount of spoil from an adjacent mine shaft, and Pull takes this to indicate that the

/oor' preceded that panicular shali.

Floor 2 - located between Shaft 2 and the shaft immediately to its south-west, this was

discovered during the excavation of Shaft 2. It occup ied 'the s hapeless r idge of undisturbed

ground between Shaft 2 and the shaft immediately lo the South West'. Again 'it consisled oJ a

mass offlakes andJlint debris resting directly on lhe otiginal hill surface'.The east end ofthe

Jloor'was coverecl by up to a foot (o.3m) ofchalk rubble interpreted as mining debris.

The Jloar'contained the 'residue of two large heqrths', each consisting of quantities of

calcined flints, including flakes. one was close to the lip of Shaft 2. Some pot sherds'

undescribed, were fo und 'afewfeet to lhe ltest'. As for the se cond 'hearth', Pull w rites (1932'

60) that -where

the western end ofthe Jloor dipped into the depression formed over the head

of the mine shaft to the south-west of Pit 2, a number ofJlinl implements were met with

Beyonrl this point the Jloar was surmounted by the second hearth'. lts contents included

charcoal, plus burnt animal and human bones. ln the vicinity were numerous'animal bones,

mainly ox, pig and sheep, and more undescribed potsherds, plus a large quantity ofash in the

depression above the shaft. Separate from the hearths but within the floor'was 'a small,

much-worn-down rubber of fi ne-grained I ight-coloured sandstone'.

The main find from Floor 2 occurred 16ft (4 8m) from the lip of Shaft 2. It consisted of a

deposit of cremated human bones lying directly on the chalk surface beneath the floor''Covering an area ofabout I sq ft (0.3m2), the cremated remains were piled in a round heap

and mixed with a quantity ofcharcoal. The lack ofevidence for burning around these remains

suggests that the cremation had not occurred on this spot Pull in fact suggestedthat the south

west hearth, 9ft (2.7m) from the cremation deposit, \Yas the place where the cremation had

actually occurred.several fragments of pottery were in contact with these remains. The

pottery, which Pull described as 'British No. I and of the Beaker class', was said to be

'idenlical in pasle and texture with the other fragments found on the.floor'-

Also in contact with the bones was a flint axe Nearby was 'an elongated oval implement of

Jlint and allint pick ofpeculiar form',while a foot to the we stwas 'a small chc)rm or pendant,

fashioned from soft lleqlden sandstone'.

Pull noted that the floor' herc was in the area covered by mining spoil (ie chalk rubble),

probably from Shaft 2, and that the cremation clearly predated this (note that the 'floor'

appears to post-date the shaft to the south-w€st). Pull in fact argued that 'lt is certain that lhe

whole of the Jloor and the hearth at its western end is earlier thqn Shaft 2, cts it appears thal

the mining debris which surmounted the Jloor had been tilted; also the Jloor ended so

abruptly at the tip of Shaft 2, as to present the qppearqnce ofhaving been cut throughwhen

that shaft was sunlc '(Pull & Sainsbury 1929c).

Floor 3 - located towards the northern end ofthe mined area, this lay in an area between the

lips ofthree shafts and partly overlay the mouth ofa fourth. The floor was also partly covered

21.

by mining spoil which Pull believed to have been added to the mound of barrow l2 (see

below). Like FIoor l, it consisted ofa closely-packed layer offlint material (including flakes,

'chippings' and nodules as well as numerous implements eg axes, picks, ovates are

mentioned) 3 to 4 inches (0.07 to 0.lm) deep (Pull 1932, Pull & Sainsbury 1930d).

Floor 4 - a short distance south-east ofFloor 1, this material lay in an area between two shafts,

and was partially overlain by spoil. Material from the floor included a broken red deer antler

pick, several incomplete flint axes, and a complete flint axe broken in two

The Round Barrows

Pullidentifiedand'thoroughlyinvestigated'adozenfeaturesinandaroundtheflintminingsite which he referred to as round barrows. However, it is highly debatable whether this

represents a satisfactory term with which to describe them. The slight nature ofsome ofthem,

many less than lft (0.3m) high, even raises questions about the appropriateness ofthe term

'mound'.ln addition the frequent presence ofa layer ofclosely-packed fl int nodules displays

affinities with some Early Bronze Age cremation cemeteries rvhich are covered in a similar

fashion, eg Steyning Round Hill (Burstow 1958), a couple of miles north-east of Cissbury,

and Easton Down, Wilts (Stone 1933). Furthermore, layers or mounds offlint nodules are by

no means uncommon features ofround barrows on the South Downs and further afield. While

much ofthe material used in the construction ofthe various mounds may have been scooped

up from old spoil heaps and working floors, there is clear indication of extraction at a late

date, and it will be argued that the presence of large quantities offlint nodules associated with

some ofthese mounds suggests that they were mined specifically for that purpose.

The 12 features are described below using Pull's nomenclature and numbering, the latter

representing the sequence of excavation:

'Barrow' 1 - Excavations occured on two sepamte occasions. The first comprised a narrow

trench dug into the eastem side ofthe mound in 1923. Publication ofthat work (Pull 1923)

prompted some debate in the local press. As a result, the mound was fully excavated four

years later (Pull 1927). The barow consisted ofa hemispherical mound 44ft in diameter and

5ft high erected over the infilled Shaft 3, comfortably within the main area of mining' A

bowl-shaped depression of ?ft (2.1m) radius on its crest would appear to be the result ofthe

shaft fill beneath the mound slumping some time after mound construction. In total the

mound also impinged on five sunken depressions presumed also to represent infilled shafts.

The mound itself consisted of chalk blocks and rubble - mining spoil - and was completely

covered by a capping of closely-packed flint nodules (floorstone according to Pull) The

capping was intact within the slumped area, and subsequent to the slumping some silt/soil had

partially filled the crater above the nodules.

Pull stated that no silting had occurred between the mound and the infill of shaft 3'

Furthermore, he described the fill ofthe shaft as unstratified, and containing antler fragments,

flint implements an d flakes 'es did the b(lrrow mound above it'- The implication of this and

the chalk rubble making up the mound is that the filling ofthe shaft and construction ofthe

22.

mound may effectively represent a single episode contemporary with the interments

described below.

Three feet (0.9m) south ofthe centre ofthe mound and 3ft (0.9m) below the turfat the bottom

of the crater was an interment consisting of the cremated remains of a child spread over an

area ofsome 7 feet (2.1m). The remains were mixed with ashes and charcoal, and associated

with Collared Um sherds (assigned by Longworth (1984) to his'unclassified series, south-

eastem style'). Also in close proximity to the bones were two small flint celts (Pull 1927

claims that one was in actual contact with the interment), an oval flint knife snapped in two,

and some pieces ofworked chalk. A further portion ofthis mixed deposit occurred in the crest

ofthe mound at a higher level, only some 18 inches below the surface. This discrepancy, as

suggested by Pull, appears to have been caused by the slumping Pull's description of this

intement is a little ambiguous, and lacks some of the detail present in his later excavation

notes, but it is possible that the cremation and some at least of the associated material were

placed or spread on some level surface or 'platform'prior to completion ofthe mound and the

capping with flint nodules.

'Barrow' 2 - Located, according to Pull,'on some open ground at the north'east extremity ofthe mine field, arul...separated from the nedrest shafts by some 20ft (6n) of undisturbed

surface'. The mound was roughly oval, 27ft (8.2m) by 22ft (6.7m), and a maximum of l0

inches (0.3m) high, and made up entirely ofchalk and soil, although the presence offlakes of

mined flint within the mound was also noted There was no capping of flint nodules Pull

refers to this mound as covering an oval grave cut into the chalk, but his description and

section drawing suggest that the feature is in fact a pit dug to the level ofthe flint seam, and

which has subsequently been used for the interment of human remains before being

concealed by a low mound.

The sequence of events is confused somewhat by the later insertion of a (probable) Saxon

inhumation. Beginning with the pit, this was orientated nofih-east to south-west and was 9ft

long by 5-5tl wide. The sides were near vertical. Its depth was a minimum of2.25ft but in the

centre and for its full width it had been dug to a depth of4 5ft. The seetion drawing appears to

indicate that the shallower depth roughly coincided with the flint seam, whilst the deeper

section occurs in an area where a vertical seam existed. Pull regarded the pit as a grave,

although it would seem more Iikely to have been dug initially for flint extraction

The lowest fill ofthe pit contained chalk blocks and rubble without an admixture ofsoil At

the bottom was a splinter from an antler pick, plus a block of chalk bearing a hole possibly

made by just such an implement. Within the 'hole in thefloor" among this rubble, were the

partial remains ofthe skeleton ofan adult male, including skull, some arm bones, part ofthe

pelvis and sacrum, and a phalange. Pull suggested that this was 'distinctly and

undoubtedly...one of the Beeker folk' on the basis of the skull, which he described as

'markedly brachycephqlic'. Pull regarded the bones as representing a disturbed inhumation

which had been 'reinterred in a confused heap' after the interment of the secondary burial

The upper part ofthe pit, in the area undisturbed by the later inhumation, was filled with soil

rather than chalk rubble, and contained a single human skull fragment, apparently of a young

2J.

person. It occured 9 inches (0.02m) below the turf, near the bottom of this soil infill, at the

westem edge ofthe oval pit. Close to it were two pieces ofchalk stained green as though they

had been in contact with an item ofcopper or bronze. Pull regarded this as the remnants ofa

secondary interment largely destroyed or removed by the later Saxon actiYity

Notwithstanding the evident flint extraction and Pull's faith in skull shape, these first two

interments are effectively undated, and may belong anywhere within the Neolithic and Early

Bronze Ages, if not later.

The final interment was placed in a grave dug easGwest into the mound, from the east side'

oval in shape, it contained a male inhumation laid on its back, feet to east and head to west.

Bone preservation appears to have been poor in places, but Pull suggests that the skull was

absent. A'mass ofiron scoriq'beneath the bones ofthe left hand appears to have represented

the remains of a short iron knife.

.Bafrow, 3 - Situated right on the eastern edge ofthe mined area, this again seems to consist of

a low hemispherical rnound sealing a backfilled pit dug as far as the flint seam (Pull's Shaft

no. 5). The flint seam was present only on the western side, and the base of the pit has been

extended in this direction in a number ofplaces. Depressions, presumably representing other

infilled shafts, were observed to the north, west and south, but not to the east, where it appears

likely that the flint seam was not present.

The mound was 28ft (8.5m) in diameter and up to i ft (0.3m) high. At its core was a flint cairn

14ft (4.2m) in diameter and 9in (0.02m) high in the centre, and consisting ofnodules, waste

flakes, implements and hammer stones. This cairn overlay the deposits of hurnan remains,

and was itself covered by chalk and soil, this in tum being capped by a layer of large flint

nodules, some of them weighing up to l4lbs (6.35kg).

The upper mound contained what Pull and Sainsbury (1928b) refened to as a'workshop

floor' - ie the flirl caim - consisting of nodules, compacted masses of flakes, fine chippings

and splinters, hammerstones, and implements in various stages ofmanufacture, They clearly

regarded this as in situ knapping debris, though it may equally- be largely redeposited

material. tn the centre ofthis layer was an area 6ft ( I .8m) in radius containing burnt flints and

charcoal, though Pull is quite certain that this material is not ifl silr, ie the buming had

occurred elsewhere. This bumt material apparently lay between the flint capping and the

'workshop floor'. This is somewhat problematic given the maximum height of the mound

(0.3m) and the maximum height of the flint caim (0.22m) Only O 0?m remains for the turi

capping of nodules, chalk and soil layer, and burnt material Presumably Pull is not

differentiating between the mound and the shaft fill, which in tum could be taken as an

indication that there was no clear differentiation between the two. This is further indicated by

Pulls discussion of the inlerments

A platform offlint nodules was observed 0 45m below the apex ofthe mound Pull states that

it was formed ofbo th 'Jlint nodules deriveelfrom the mined seam, together with large slabs of

tabular flint which traverses the semi-vertical joint planes met with in the mine shafts' (P]ull

1932,':'0). None of these nodules showed any sign of working, despite their apparent

suitability for knapping. The platform was also slightly off-centle in relation to the mound.

.\^

Taken together, both statements indicate that the platform was actually within the upper fill of

the shaft. The flint cairn/working floor covering this platform suggests a substantial

assemblage offlint-working debris deposited on top ofthe first interment.

The interment on the platform comprised the contracted skeleton ofa young male laid on its

left side, head to north, face to east, with the hands up to the face Pull states that the skeleton

was surrounded by flint implements, but given the fact that the platform was covered by a

mass of worked flint, the presence of at least some of these implenents may well be

fortuitous. However, west of the skeleton and in contact with it behind the shoulders was a

leaf-shaped arrowhead which, if a genuine association (and correct typological

identification), would appear to indicate a likely date no later than the mid-3rd millennium

BC. Other items mentioned by Pull are a large chopper and an ovate implement lft (0.3m)

further west; a 'very finely finished Cissbury type axe'and a less well-finished one, plus a

boar tusk. all north ofthe skeleton, near the head; and a large rough axe 'ofCissbury type"

east ofthe skeleton.

The second interment was described as being 5ft (1.5m) south-east of the centre ofthe

mound, I ft (0.3m) beneath the surface, and 2ft (0.6m) south-east of the other inhumation.

These two burials were separated by 2ft (0.6m) ofchalk and soil, and if Pull's measurements

are accurate, may have been slightly separaled 've ically' as well. This second burial

occupied an area 4ft (1.2m) square, and was laid on slightly compacted chalk rubble and soil'

Pult does not describe the nature ofthe material covering the skeleton The burial was that of

a young female, contracted on the left side, head to north, face to east and hands on knees, ie

almost identical to the first. Placed over the lower jaw and teeth was a large flat block of

tabular flint bearing a crescent-shaped thermal fracture, which Pull felt had been extended by

artificial chipping. The skeleton was also accompanied by a flint axe plus ox and pig teeth'

Scattered throughout the area occupied by the two inhumations was the cremated remains ofa

third. Pull argued for its contemporaneity with the other two as there was no evidence of

disturbance to the mound above the inhumations. This presumably implies that the cremated

remains were, at least, not beneath the skeletons.

'Barrow'4 - Situated some distance north ofthe mined area, on the crest ofthe next ridge to

the west, this mound was 36ft (10.9m) north to south by 32ft (9.1m) east to west, and lft(0.3m) high. The mound was made up ofchalk, soil and flints, with the flint predominating.

There was no capping of flint nodules. Like the other mounds, there was no accompanying

ditch.

Beneath the mound, but slightly off-centre, was a large oval pit (or grave) measuring 8ft

(2.4m) north-west - south-east, and 5ft (1.5m) wide, cut 2ft (0 6m) into the chalk. It was

vertically sided and had a flat bottom. The upper fill ofthe pit was 0.2m of soil; then came

0.2m ofcompacted small pieces ofchalk and soil;then a mass ofloose flints without any soil

matrix; and finally a shallow layer of small chalk rubble covering the floor ofthe pit'

The flint layer contained the incomplete remains of the skeleton of an adult male. Pull felt

initially that the incomplete, 'disturbed' \alwe ofthe skeleton was a feature ofthe original

25.

burial rite, but later suggested disturbance by a'vanished'secondary burial. However, no

evidence was presented for the latter. Incomplete inhumation was ofcourse also a feature of"banow" 2 (above).

Also present within the flint layer at the eastem end were a large triangular flint arrowhead,

an oval flint knile, and an ox tooth, while at the westem end were several flakes, a rough flint

knife and a flint core. Adopting the nomenclature of Grime's Graves, Pull stated that the

implements were of mined floorstone' bfi that most of the flint present was not. The only

other artefact mentioned by Pull was a single Beaker sherd found on the surface a few yards

east ofthe barrow.

'Barrow' 5 - According to Pull, this mound was located about 2001t (6 I rn) from the mines,

slightly north of east. The mound was 21ft (6.4m) in diameter and a maximum of 9 inches

(0.2m)" high. It consisted primarily of small chalk rubble and soil, and was capped with a

layer of flint nodules- The mound had been constructed over an area of ground that was

featureless with the exception ofan off-centre shallow depression. Pull is not clear on this,

but it seems possible that the mound was built directly on the chalk, particularly given the

utilisation ofthe shallow depression, which Pull felt was a natural feature.

The depression contained a Collared Um (Longworth 1984, Secondary series, South-eastern

style) 4.5 inches (0.01m) high, standing upright, its mouth covered by a large flat slab of

tabular flint. The pot itself was completely empty save for a single retouched flint flake

'slruckfrom the outer crust ofa nodule...ll bore centrically upon its face a thermalfracture ofthree cup-shaped pils arrdnged triangularly so as to produce a resemblance to a clover leaf.'

A scatter offlakes sunounded the um and also occurred above the cover stone, though given

that the mound was apparently made up of mining spoil, this may have been accidental 6

inches (o.0l5m) east and then lft (0.3m) south of the urn (and presumably outside the

depression) was a quantity of thoroughly cremated human bones ananged in a crescent.

Among these remains was a small pebble of whitish yellow quartz, ard a 'small fne flintblade with semi-circulqr hollows 14,orn in both cuttinT edges as if it had served the purpose ofan qrrov) or speqr shaft trimmer.'South ofthe cremation were two leaf-shaped anowheads, a

small two-edged blade or knife, and an elongated water wom pebble of black flint.

Unfortunately Pull does not state how far south these items were, so it is not possible to say

that there was a definite close association between a collared urn and leaf-shaped arrowheads.

the hollow containing the urn and the area around the bones was packed with a mixture offine

soil and charcoal.

Around the central and south-western parts of the mound, the covering layer of flints was

covered with and also lay on top of numerous flint flakes and fne chippings', mostly

occurring in little heaps. Pull interpreted these as in situ flint knapping debris representing the

final stages of implement manufacture, which had clearly occurred during and after the

laying ofthe flint capping. Pull felt that the knapping activity was closely associated with the

act ofburial.

lo.

'Barrow' 6 Pu ll describes this mound as being I 00 yards (91m) north of no 5' although ifthis

is correct then his plan is clearly in error, as among other things, it depicts mound 6 closer to

mound 5 than the latter is to the mines, yet elsewhere he describes mound 5 as being 20011

(60m) from the mines. lt is assumed here that mound 6 was actually l00ft (30.4m) north-east

ofmound 5. "Barrow" g lies roughly halfivay between them.

This mound was l5ft (4.5m) in diameter and 9" high, and was made primarily of mined and

surface flint, plus soil and some chalk rubble. Once again, the mound was capped by a

closely-packed layer offlint nodules. This time, Pull states clearly that the mound rested upon

3" of 'undisturbed mould' over 3" of chalk silt.

Beneath the mound, off-centre to the north-west, was a small oval pit cut into the chalk.

orientated north-west - south-east, it measured 2ft (0.6m) by l.5ft (0.4m), and was vertically-

sided and a maximum of 1.25ft (0.3m) deep, although the depth was irregular, and the section

drawing suggests that this represents another pit dug to look lor and/or extract flint lt was

filled to the top with 'afne black mould mixed with large quantities of charcoal', which also

contained a large quantity of cremated human remains, numerous flint flakes, some burnt,

plus some burnt flint pebbles, a single Beaker sherd, an unburnt bone pin, plus a cortical flake

with thermal fracture similar to that contained within tlte collared um beneath mound 5.

Immediately above the pit and around it for a radius of2ft. the mound was composed of bumt

flints mixed with a few unburnt ones. Three feet to the SE was a large quantity ofunburnt flint

plus a leaf-shaped arrowhead and a small two-edged blade. Again it is not possible to directly

associate artefacts such as the leaf-shaped arrowhead with the material in the pit fill'

.Barrow' 7 - Located 228 ft (69m) north-east ofmound 2, but closer to mound 5, this featule

was 20ft (6m) in diameter and 9" high Flat-topped to within 3ft (0 9ln) of its edge, it was

again capped with a layer offlint nodules, though this time Pull noted the presence of several

'rough implements' also. In addition, quantities offlakes a\d' 'chippings' again occurred on

and under lhe nodule laYer.

Beneath the mound was a saucer-shaped hollow in the chalk, which contained the - much

decayed skeleton of a young person', contracted on its right side, face to the north-east and

hands up to the face. In front ofthe face were two flint flakes and sherds from a collared urn

(Longworth 1984 Secondary Series, SE style) Behind the back was a worn obj ect of worked

chalk, some pieces ofsandstone and a fine oval tool, apparently of mined flint'

'Barrow'8 - Located 80 yards (?feet) north-east ofmound 2, this feature was omitted from

pull's published site plan. The mound was l2ft (3.6m) in diameter and 6" high, and consisted

almost entirely of large mined flints. Centmlly located beneath the mound was a saucer-

shaped hollow in the chalk some 6ft (1.8m) across and entirely filled up with loose chalk

rubble. Above the hollow was found 'the much decayed remains'of a small collared urn

(Longworth 1984 Unclassified series, SE style). Also distributed around the lip ofthe hollow

were some bumt flint flakes, a scraper, a fine oval tool, and quantities of unburnt flakes

2'7.

'Barrow' 9 - Pull described this feature as a barrow only 'v'ith considerable reluctance''

Situated roughly midway between mounds 5 and 6, it clearly was not a banow at all. 40ft

(12m) in diameter, it consisted of an uninterrupted ring ditch 3ft (0.9m) wide and lft 9in

(0.5m) deep, accompanied by an extemal bank I ft (0 3m) high and l0ft (3m) wide, enclosing

an apparently featureless central flat area. lt is not clear how much of this central area was

actually examined, though according to Pull it was covered by turfover 9" ofsoil mixed with

surface flints. East ofthe cantre were some fragments ofbon€s and teeth ofox, pig and sheep,

plus some bumt flints and a pair of flint knives.

The primary fi tl ofthe ditch consisted of3 " of fine silt. On top ofthis, for rlre whole width and

length ofthe ditch, was a layer ofclosely laid flint nodules c9" deep. Pull described them as

mined flint. The ditch fill above the nodules was described simply as 'zror'rld''

A number of items were found in the primary silt beneath the flint layer. In the NW sector

were collared urn sherds; in the W were half a flint axe, a flint pick' a core, a knife, and

numerous flakes; in the S were some human bones ('much decayed), some red deer antler, 3

scrapers, and some possible Beaker sherds. Pull states that these sherds were very similar in

paste and texture to those from adjacent barrows, which means that if they were Beaker

sherds, then they were possibly manufactured and fired in a similar way to the collared urns

ftom the other mounds.

'Barrow' 10 - Located b€tween mounds 6 and 11, this was a mound 32ft (9.7m) in diameter

and 3ft (0.9rn) high, constructed ofsoil and clay-with-flints, and lacking any capping layer of

nodules. the mound covered a centrally placed pit 7ft (2.1m) long and 2 5ft wide dug 2 25ft

(0.6m) into the chalk. It contained the 'partially decayed' skeleton of an adult male fully

extended on its back, head to west, feet east, left arm by its side and right arm crossed over the

body towards thethigh (Pull & Sainsbury 1930c). The leftfemurwas comPletely severed half

way along its length. The form of burial implied a Saxon date to Pull, who found nothing

within the mound to connect it to the flint mining period at all.

'Banow' I I Another small mound 16ft (4-8m) in diameter and 9" high, this was located on

higher ground to the Nw of mound 10, and nearer the hill summit The mound itself was

largely composed of soil and flints, including some flint flakes and a few bumt stones, and

was capped by a layer offlint nodules centrally located beneath the mound and placed on the

old ground surface was an inverted undecorated collared urn (Longworth 1984, Secondary

Series SE style). The um was standing on a slab oftabular flint, while a similar slab rested on

its uptumed base. The um was l/3 full with the cremated remains of a young person'

'Barrow' l2 The last mound to be excavated by Pull at Blackpatch, this had been constructed

within the mined area and completely covered the mouth of shaft 8 The mound was 28ft

(8.5m) in diameter and 2ft 6in (0.7rn) high. No rainwash layer was noted between the base of

the mound and the fill of the galleried shaft, which was actually off-centre, slightly to the

north, beneath the mound. The shaft had apparently been filled with chalk rubble, while the

mound was composed ofchalk rubble, chalk blocks, and waste flint. Little else is noted about

28.

the shaft, although Pull's plan ofthe site suggests that it was much narrower at the mouth than

the surrounding shafts, perhaps implying that little time had elapsed for weathering to occur

before it was completely infilled.

Instead ofthe shaft. a series ofinterments were centrally located beneath tlle mound. The first

was a little south ofthe lip ofthe shaft, and was a skeleton contracted on its right side with

head to west and face to south. It had apparently been disturbed by the insertion of a second

inhumation, an adult male, crouched on its right side, head to west, face to south, and hands

up to and before the face. In the hands was an object of worked chalk while 3 more were

found behind the back. At the feet were a flint axe and a flint knife. The bones of a third

skeleton were scattered throughout the centre ofthe mound.

Finally, it should be noted that 3 probable Saxon inhumations had been inserted into the upper

part of the mound, one to the north and two to the south of the original burials. All were

extended and laid on their backs. heads to west, feet to east, with hands neatly folded on the

pelvis. The most northerly lacked its skull.

'Dwelling Sites'

While excavating at the flint mines, Pull also took the opportunity to investigate some nearby

features which he interpreted as being tlrc 'dwelling sites, which had obviously been occupied

by the mining people'. Pull locates these 'dwellings' (Pull & Sainsbury 1929e, Pull 1932) to

the nodh-east ofthe main mining area, on the 'upward sloping end' ofthe deep coombe to the

east of the ridge containing the mining area. He clainls that this end of the coombe 'ls

enclosed by a large oval earthv'ork of unknown origin', and the area from the earthwork

westwards to the m ines 'is dotted v)ilh (l considerQble number ofdwelling sites'. He describes

them as being widely-scattered, with surface indications consisting sometimes of slight

depressions in the turf, 'but more usually (of1 lhe extra greenness and shortness of the turf

itseU.

He examined several. They consisted either of circular, flat bottomed and vertically-sided

excavations into the chalk, or saucer-shaped excavations. They were generally 9- 18in (0.4m)

deep and 8-20ft (2.4-6m) in diameter. Of those examined, Pull stated that all had a similar'natural infilling' of 'about I foot of soil, broken chalk and flints; and below this, at the

bollom, aboul 6 lnches of chalk mud or rainwash'. Adefacts recovered include potsherds,

flintflakes,flintimplem€nts,'brokensandstonerabbers',animal bones and burnt flints Pull

(l932) adds that'six [NB seven in Pull & Sainsbury 1929e] beautlful scrapers were found

together in a heap at the botlom of one of these sites These and a Jlinl axe can be matched

with others from the mines'. According to Pull the flint implements recovered from these

features were made of mined flint. No hearths or areas of burning were noted.

Unfortunately Pull published no plans, sections or illustrations of finds from these sites'

Curwen (1954, I 18) displays some scepticism towards the interpretation ofthese features as

'dwellings', and regarded the pottery as 'holding the key to the situation. The few sherds

shown to fCurwen] by Mr Putl are of indeletminate character' Pull himself (Pull &

29.

'Barrow' 9 - Pull described this feature as a barrow only 'with considetqble reluclance'.

Situated roughly midway between mounds 5 and 6, it clearly was not a barrow at all. 40ft

(12m) in diameter, it consisted ofan uninterrupted ring ditch 3ft (0.9m) wide and lft 9in

(0.5m) deep, accompanied by an external bank I ft (0 3m) high and l0ft (3m) wide, enclosing

an apparently featureless central flat area. It is not clear how much of this central area was

actually examined, though according to Pull it was covered by tulfover 9" ofsoil mixed with

surface flints. East ofthe centre were some fragments ofbones and teeth ofox, pig and sheep,

plus some bumt flints and a pair of flint knives.

The primary fill ofthe ditch consisted of3" offine silt. On top ofthis, for the whole width and

length ofthe ditch, was a layer ofclosely laid flint nodules c9" deep. Pull described them as

mined flint. The ditch fill above the nodules was described simply as zozld'.

A number of items were found in the primary silt beneath the flint layer' ln the NW sector

were collared um sherds; in the W were half a flint axe, a flint pick, a core, a knife, and

numerous flakes: in the S were some human bones ('nac} decayed), some red deer antler' 3

scrapers, and some possible Beaker sherds. Pull states that these sherds were very similar in

paste and texture to those from adjacent barrows, which means that if they were Beaker

sherds, then they were possibly manufactured and fired in a similar way to the collared urns

from the other mounds.

'Barrow' 10 - Located between mounds 6 and 11, this was a mound 32ft (9.7m) in diameter

and 3ft (0.9m) high, constructed ofsoil and clay-with-flints, and lacking any capping layer of

nodules. the mound covered a centrally placed pit 7ft (2.1m) long and 2.5ft wid e dug2 25ft

(0.6m) into the chalk. It contained the 'partially decayed' skeleton of an adult male fully

extended on its back, head to west, feet east, left arm by its side and right arm crossed over the

body towards the thigh (PuU & Sainsbury 193 0c). The left femur was comp letely severed half

way along its length. The form of burial implied a Saxon date to Pull, who found nothing

within the mound to connect it to the flint mining period at all.

'Banow' I I Another small mound 16ft (4.8m) in diameter and 9" high, this was located on

higher ground to the Nw of mound 10, and nearer the hill summit The mound itself was

largely composed of soil and flints, including some flint flakes and a few bumt stones, and

was capped by a layer offlint nodules centrally located beneath the mound and placed on the

old ground surface was an inverted undecorated collared um (Longworth 1984, Secondary

series SE style). The um was standing on a slab oftabular flint, while a similar slab rested on

its upturned base. The um was l/3 full with the cremated remains ofa young person

.Barrow' I 2 The last mound to be excavated by Pull at Blackpatch, this had been constlucted

within the mined area and completely covered the mouth of shaft 8. The mound was 28ft

(8.5m) in diameter and 2ft 6in (0.7m) high. No rainwash layer was noted between the base of

the mound and the fill of the galleried shaft, which was actually off-centre, slightly to the

north, beneath the mound. The shaft had apparently been filled with chalk rubble, while the

mound was composed ofchalk rubble, chalk blocks, and waste flint. Little else is noted about

28.

Sainsbury 1929e) felt the sherds comparable with pottery from the barrows and flom beneath

Floor 2.

30.

Annex 2

Earthwork details at BlackPatch

Only one of Pull's features can be identified with any reasonable certainty on the ground, his

Barrow 3. This number has been retained. Two depressions lie alongside this but cannot with

certainty be linked to any shown by Pull. A unique numbering system for the shafts has

therefore been adopted. PULL'S SHAFTS 1-8 DO NOT CORRESPOND TO THOSE

BELOW,

Shafts (refer to plan)

I Circular shaft 8m diameter x 0.2m deep.

2 Circular shaft l0m diameter x 0.2m deep, but partially overlaid by spoil (S1) that

enhances the height.

3 Slightly oval shatl 10 x 8n x 0.2n deep.

4 Slightly oval shaft 8 x 7m x 0.2m deep.

5 Slightly oval shaft 8 x 6m x 0.1m deep.

6 Slightly oval shaft 9 x 7m x 0.2m deep.

7 Shaft apparently oval 9 x 7m x 0.2m deep but partly overlain by spoil from barrow

83,

8 Shaft 8 appears to be oval 15 x 12m x 0.25m deep, but which is partly overlain by

barow 83.

9 Slightly oval shaft 11 x lOm x 0.25m deep.

10 Shaft that appears to be slightly oval 11 x lom x 0.25m deep, but which is partly

overlain by barrow 83.

11 Oval shaped shaft 12m x l lm x 0.25m deep.

Spoil Heaps

Only two spoil heaps wer€ clear enough to plot

S I Respects shaft I but appears to overlie shaft 2. lt remains some 0.3m high and can be

tmced for some 35m as a single scarp along the slope ofthe ridge

52 At the extremity ofthe surviving earthworks as a shallow scarp 20m long x 0.25m

high.

BarrowI

This appears to be the same as Pull's barrow 3. It is now slightly oval and lies 20m from the N-

S farmtrack. It measures 16 x I lm x 0.3m high, and appears to overlie shafts 7 and 10,

although the edges are obscured by the bulldozer and there can be no certainty ofthis.

31.

Annex 3

Details of shafts from Pull's excavations

Surviving illustrations

Shaft I Photograph (Pull 1932,34)

Shaft 2 Section (Prll 1932, 43)

Shaft 3

Shaft 4

Shaft 5

Shaft 6

Shaft 7 Plan (Pull 1932, 46)

Shaft 8

Depth ofseam

Shaft 1 10.5'deep

Shaft 2 10.9' deep

Shaft 3 12' deeP

Shaft 4

Shaft 5

Shaft 6 6' deep

Shaft 7 10' deeP

Shafi 8

Diameter of shaft

Shaft 1 17'vertical sides

Shaft 2 l0' at surface, decreasing to 7' at a depth of6'Shaft3 Said to be simitar to shaft 2

Shaft4 Said to be similar to shaft 2

Shaft 5

Shaft 6 l0' vertical sides

Shaft7 12'

Shaft 8 11' (taken from illustration of barrow 12)

Galleries

Shaft 1 Individually described.

Shaft 2 4 + I hole 'to let in light'. System 'very complicated'; see description

shaft 3 said to be similar to 2 with 'extensive ramifying galleries radiating out from the base

. and connecting with neighbouring shafts'.

Shaft 4 Ditto.

Shaft 5

Shaft 6 No galleries.

Shaft 7 Said to be similar to 2 with 'entrances to eight galleries','extensiYe ramirying

galleries radiating out from the base and connecting with neighbouring shafts'.

Shaft 8 'Extensive galleries', 'connected with 7'.

Galleries invariably only backfilled close to mouth; see section ofshaft 2 and description ofshaft l.

Backfilling

Shaft I Chalk block stack at base. Upper - chalk blocks in rubble apparently from above

Shaft2 Stratified 'tilts' ofvarious sized chalk rubble and blocks, with 2.25' offine silt above,

and 1'oftopsoil. Section drawing shows 6 layers.

Shaft 3 Apparently unstratified.

Shaft 4 I' oftopsoil.Shaft 5

shaft 6 Unstratified chalk rubble and blocks, with 2ft of chalk silt above, and l' sudace

mould.

Shaft 7 Two-thirds down between two layers ofchalk lay a flint work floor. One-third ofthe

way down between two layers ofchalk lay a cremation.

Shaft 8 Filled with chalk rubble.

Chronology

Shaft 2 Topsoil included RB pottery. Floor and heafihs and cremation adjacent Pull

suggests 2 is later than that to the SOW.

Shaft 3 To the W ofshaft that had been completely backfilled, separated at top by l' (0 3m)

ofchalk. Suggests 3 came later, though 3 too was apparently unstratified with a barrow on top

and the sequence could have been in reverse.

Shaft4 l' (0.3m) below the rainwash frags ofa human femur and lowerjaw fiom different

individuals. Pull int€rprets these as being burials disturbed by the mining; 7 therefore earlier

than shaft 4.

Shaft5 Barrow 3 over.

Shaft 6

Shaft 7 One-third down a cremation with flint axe, knife etc (?crem = late)

Shaft 8 Barrow l2 over.

Floor 1 Between the lips of 3 shafts, ie earlier than them. Part of floor covered by spoil'

Floor2 E end offloor covered with up to 1' (0.3m) ofchalk rubble. See shaft 2 Pull suggests

Beaker pott€ry.

Floor 3 Between the lips ofthree shafts and partly overlay a fourth. Floor also partly covered

by mining spoil.

33.

Floor 4 Between two shafts and was partially overlain by spoil.

34.

Annex 4

Other Sites in the Vicinity

Given the density of sites in the area, and the proximity of other flint mine sites which are

being dealt with separately, this section is confined to those sites closest to Blackpatch, plus

one or two of interest which are slightly further afield

TQ 00 NT 3 - Blackpatch Bronze Age settlement - a sub-rectangular enclosure set within a

field system. The site is described in fairly summary form here, but more detailed

reconsideration is clearly needed. Excavation in 1951 (Ratcliffe-Densham & Ratcliffe-

Densham 1953) recovered a circular arrangement of post-holes indicating the presence of a

round house. The surface within the post-hole circle was 'covered' with burnt flints, Deverel-

Rimbury sherds' a flint scraper and a flint knife were also found 2 pits were uncovered within

the area of the round house, one containing quern fragments, Deverel-Rimbury sherds,

charcoal and flint; the other full of bumt flints plus a couple of potsherds. The complete

skeleton ofa lamb (or a kid) had been buried in the space between two ofthe post-holes.

A series of trenches across the westem side of the enclosure suggested that the bank was

constructed of rammed chalk, 'with a sofi ofrevetment of large tabular flints on either side'. A

slight depression was noted on either side ofthe bank, but it was argued that no true ditch was

present. Irregular tapering holes were observed in the top of the bank everyrvhere it was

examined. The excavators suggested that these indicated the former presence ofa hedge

The entrance to the enclosure was in the south-west comer' lmmediately to the east of this

entrance,oneithersideofthesouthemenclosurebank,weretwo'depressions'DepressionA,

that inside the enclosure, was bowl-shaped and 4ft 4in (1.3m) deep at its centre prior to

excavation. The depression had a level floor of broken flints within a matrix of fine black

earth. Numerous finds were made within this flint layer down to the underlying chalk

including Bronze Age, Iron Age and Roman potsherds, a Roman nail and a piece of sheet

bronze, human and animal bones, animal teeth, oyster shells, a variety of flint implements,

small quantities of charcoal, some rounded beach pebbles, several hundred bumt flints, a

'Gaulish coin' ofthe first century BC, and three flint discs made from tabular flint.

The other depression, which appears to have been sunounded by a bank connected to the

enclosure bank, was only examined by rapid trial holes during ploughing. No artefacts were

found. The fill consisted offlints, little chalk, and much soil, less black and more clayey than

that in the other depression. Both depressions were interpreted as being ponds.

TQ 00 NT 27 - bowl barrow at TQ 09540966, on the summit ofBlackpatch Hill, c5-600m to

the north ofthe flint mines. Described by the OS field investigation in 1970 as 10.5m in

diameter, 0.6m high and with no trace of a ditch.

35.

TQ 10NW 10 - bowlbarrow atTQ 10010872, c 3-500m east ofthe flint mines Described by

the OS field investigator in 1970 as being 9.5m in diameter and 0.2m high Grinsell (1934'

253) had described seeing nearly straight ditches running W-E on its N and S sides. These

were not visible in 1970.

36.

Annex 5

Air Photograph transcription and analysis

Summary

This report concems the air photographic survey of archaeological features in the vicinity of

the Neolithic flint mines at Blackpatch, west Sussex, (TQ094088). These mines were first

recognised in l9l9 when they still survived as eadhworks. The mines have now been

ploughed almost totally flat leaving very few surface remains. These were recorded in an

earthwork suryey ofthe site carried out by the field section ofthe Royal Commission on the

Historical Monuments ofEngland (RCHME) in conjunction with the Air Photography Unit.

All readily available photography held by The Royal Commission on the Historical

Monuments of England (RCHME) Swindon was examined in detail and a photogrammetric

plan prepared at 1:2500 of all the archaeological features visible. The photographic

collection held by The Cambridge Committee for Aerial Photography (CUCAP) was also

consulted.

Introduction

The photographic transcription ofthis site was undertaken between September 1994 and

February 1996, by the Air Photography Unit of the RCHME, as part of the Industry and

Enclosure in the Neolithic Project.

The archaeological interpretation and photographic transcription was canied out by Carolyn

Dyer and Simon Crutchley who jointly wrote this report.

The 1:2500 Air Photographic Transcription

Objectives

Th€ aim of this survey was to interpret and transcribe at l:2500 scale, all archaeological

features showing on the available photography within the survey area. The survey was

confined to a single modem field north-east of Myrtle Grove, an area of approximately 9 4

hectares.

37.

The final objective was to produce an accurate photogrammetric plan of all the

archaeological features within the survey area, in the form of an overlay to the OS l:2500

maps. Target accuracy was 12 m.

Definitions

For the purposes of the present survey, cropmark features are defined as those which haYe

been recorded by aerial photography as differentially coloured or textured marks in bare

plough-soil, arable crops, grass or any other form of vegetation.

Photographic Sources Consulted

During the course ofthis survey, all the specialist oblique and vertical air photographs held

by the RCHME were consulted. The CUCAP card index to their oblique collection was

consulted but no relevant photographs were Iisted.

It was not possible to carry out an exhaustive search for furlher photography which may be

held by commercial air survey companies or private individuals. Although itis possiblethat

some such coverage exists, it is unlikely to contain significant amounts of archaeological

information not already recorded on the air photographs which were available for

consultation.

Quality and Reliability of the Photography

Vertical Coverage

The early Ministry ofDefence (MOD) vertical photographs taken in the 1940's proved to be

the most useful as they clearly show a large area ofmine shafts surviving as earthworks Since

the mines were flattened in the early 1950's (Ratcliffe-Densham and Ratcliffe-Densham,

1953, 69) these photogmphs are probably the most comPlete and accurate record of the

earthworks still surviving. By using the Digicart, a simple earthwork survey ofthese features

was possible. The best images for showing the extent of the mining area were Meridian

verticals taken in March and April 1965. On these photographs, individual shafts clearly

show as dark cropmarks and large areas of light cropmarks are interpreted as spread spoil'

Table I lists the vertical photographs consulted.

Oblique Coverage

Oblique coverage ofthe site is extremely Iimited A number ofphotographs have been taken

ofarchaeological sites adjacent to the mines, but very few have been taken ofthe mining area

itself. A single colour photograph was taken ofthe area in 1995, for the express purpose of

recording the site, however, no archaeological features are visible. Table 2 lists the air

photographs consulted, giving accession number, date flown and repository information.

38.

Survey Methods and Techniques

Due to the need for accuracy, it was decided to produce plots of the various archaeological

features using computer-aided rectification. The fact that the photography which best

revealed the earthworks was at a qomparatively small scale, and that the site was on sloping

ground led to the majority ofthe survey being undertaken using the Digicart. Rectification ofadditional information was undertaken using AERIAL 4 20 software published by the

University of Bradford which uses plane transformation techniques offering metrical

precision in the region of t0-3 m at l:2500 scale. Control data was taken from the O S

l:2500 base maps (TQ0809-0909 and TQO808-0908).

In the course ofthe survey 2 separate stereoscopic models were set up on the digicart, one for

the RAF cover, one for the Meridian. There was some slight film distortion in one ofthe RAF

photogmphs and this, coupled with the absence ofone fiducial mark led to the unusually high

errors up to t 3.5 m. The Meridian cover produced residual errors no great€r than ll.5 m and

generally under I m. Two photogrammetric plots were also prepared using AERIAL digital

terrain models. The residual errors for one plot were higher than generally accepted (13.3 m)

and this was due to poor control and the marked slope. The digicart plots and those created in

AENAL matched reasonable well and it is a anticipated that most t'eatures were located

within 2 m oftheir true ground position on the final drawing.

Table 3 lists the digital files created during the course of ti're survey, giving file name,

maximum residual error and digitised photograph reference number for Aerial files and

control point information for the digicart models.

Cartographic Representation

At the time of plotting, the format of the published plans had not been decided No

topographical detail, including field boundaries, has therefore been included in the pencil

drawings.

Solid inked areas: Shafts.

Irregular stipple: Spoil (seen as earthworks on 1946 photographs).

Coloured lines: Spoil (seen as light cropmarks on 1965 photographs).

Inked lines: Hollows (seen as dark cropmarks on 1965 photographs).

The Archaeological Sites

The Neolithic Mines

The vertical air photographs clearly show at least 80 individual mine shafts in an area 240 m

by 90 m, centred on TQ094088. The 1965 Meridian photographs also show a widespread

39.

light coloured cropmark which has been interpreted as plough-levelled spoil Further dark

marks to the north ofthe main area at TQ09450898 may represent additional shafts.

A widespread mottled cropmark several fields to the east ofthe mines, on either side ofthe

County constituency boundary at TQ09950890, may represert another area of mining

activity.

The Round Barrows

Twelve round barrows have been previously recorded in and around the mining area, none ofwhich could be positively identified from the air photographs. An attempt was made to match

up this photographic survey with the earthwork survey undertaken by the field section ofRCHME in 1995?. The two plans seen to coffespond well and a discrete area of light

coloured cropmark which is visible on the 1965 photographs at TQ09430878, is thought to be

the barrow field surveyed in 1995.

Table 1

VERTICAL PHOTOGRAPHS CONSULTED

Library Sortie

Repository

number number

Frame Date Scale

flown

to67 541/5040 3t35-31 2010415010000 MoD

to6'7 54tlso4o 4077-79 20104150t0000 MoD

ttt7't os/70169 139-l4l 03/06170 7500 NMR

1tt7'7 0s/70169 1"/7-179 03106/707500 NMR

ll78 540/526 3014 06/06/5110500 MoD

1919 58/28s9 37 5-37 6 1310515911000 MoD

1919 58/2859 3'17 -3'.78 13105/5911000 MoD

t92o 58/2860 124-126 t4/05/591t200 MoD

t92o 58/2860 t74-l'1614105/5911200 MoD

t924 5S/2939 254-255 t5/06159t0666 MOD

\926 58/2943 448-450 16/06/5910366 MOD

t926 5812943 448-449 16/06/s910366 MOD

2584 s4l/T/50 3023'3025 l2l 10/5014000

MOD

2584 541/'t/so 4023-4025 12110/5014000

MOD

3696 t06GlLA/313 4078-4080 17105/4515000 MoD

3822 l06G/LAll9l 7053 2210314510000 MoD3822 r06G/LAll9l 7056 22103/4510000 MoD

40.

4286

4287

4288

4289

481

481

481

481

564

7230

8097

8871

8871

960

960

Table 2

OBLIQUE PHOTOGRAPHS CONSULTED

136-r38 l2103/6511000 NMRr r6-l r8 t3104/6511000 NMR

43-45 12i03l651 1000 NMR

187-189 0l/04/651 1000 NMR2t/09/4610625 MOD2v09/4610625 MOD2t/09/4610625 MOD21109/46t0625 MOD22/0t/47t3300 MOD

2t2 2'//0217s1o000

138-t421'71061'15 5000 NMRr 13-114 07105/8110000 NMR

1',70-l'11 07 /0518110000 NMR

5378-53',19 l9104/4610300 MOD

5409-5411 19/04/4610300 MOD

Frame Date

MAL/65008MAL/65031

MAL/65009

MAL/65021

CPE/UK.i 1751

CPE/UK,/I75ICPEruK/1751

CPE/UK/1751

oPENWt947MAL/7s009

NMRMALI'7s041

MAL/81012

MAL/81012

3ITUDNW1573/TUDNWI57

30'7 5-30'77

3121-3122

4115-4116

3 153-3 I 55

4038

NGR

number

TQo809/7

TQ08o9/9

TQ0908/1

TQo908/2

TQl008/3NMR

TQ 1008/5

TQ1008/6

TQl008/7TQl008/8

IndexRepository

nu mber

Accession

NMR 905

NMR 905

NMR 905 462-464

NMR 15210

NMR 1846

NMR 1846

NMR 1846

NMR 1846

NMR 1846 071

02l10/8oNMR02l10/8oNMR

NMR

flown

455-461

471

04/03/'76

20

o6'7

068

069

070

04/03/76NMR

02110180

04/03/76NMR

NMR30/01/95NMR

02/10/80

NMR

02t10/60

Table 3

DIGITAL FILES

AERIAL 4.2 FILES

41 .

BLACKPI.DIG MAL/65008 I37

BLACKP2.DIG CPENKI757 4116

DIGICART MODELS

Digitalfile name

t0l102

103

107

108

301

304

305

30?.

Digitisedphotograph

r€sidual €rror

AERIAL 4.2

AERIAL 4.2

+0.7 m

+ 1.5 m

DigitalMethod

Maximum

N.B Errors are presented in centimetres not metres.

RESIDUAL ERRORS FOR SHUT DOWN FILE BLACK367.SDF

Control Grid Grid Grid Error Error Errorpoint East North Height X Y Z

903400 841550

903550 861050

947750 941600

993750 916550

936400 851850

00000000

0 -32

o -28

0 -78

0 133

0593'70 0

7250 0

14690 0

13820 0

-19

27

-145

62

75

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

8

-7

3t-32

^n

tr

Table 4

RESIDUAL ERRORS FOR SHUT DOWN FILE BLACK367.SDF

Control Grid Grid Grid Error Error Errorpoint East North Height X Y Z

l0l 903400 841550 0 -95 -21 0

102 903550 861050 0 -51 4 0

103 947750 941600 0 -19 274 0

204 914300 1026500 0 -5 -347 0

105 969800 1023200 0 -89 42 0

406 1014500 982100 0 260 48 0

301 0 0 9370 0 0 -8

302 0 0 13820 0 0 l1

30300862600-2

43.

Bibliography

Bradley, R, & Edmonds, M,1993 Interpreting the Axe Trade; production and exchange in

Neolithic Britain Cambridge University Press

Clark, JGD, & Piggott, 5,1933 The Age of the British Flint Mires, Antiquity 7, 166-183

Clarke, DL, l9'l1 Beaker Pottery ofGreal Britain and lreland Cambridge University Press

Curwen, EC, 1929 Prehistoric Sussex The Homeland Association

Curwen, EC, 1954 The Archaeologt of Sussex 2nd ed Methuen

Drewett, P, 1978 Neolithic Sussex, in Drewett, P, ed Archaeologt in Sussex to AD I 500 CBA

Research Report 29, 23-29

Drewett, P, Rudling, D, & Gardiner, J, 1988 The South-Eqst to 1000AD Longman

Eustace, GW, 1930 The Tompkins Diary Sussex Archaeol Coll 71, 10-55

Gardiner, JP, 1988 The composition and distribution ofNeolithic surfaceflint assemblages in

central southern England',lJniversity of Reading Dept of Archaeology unpublished PhD

thesis

Goodman, CH, Frost, M, Curwen, E, & Curwen, E C, 1924 Blackpatch Flint-Mine

Excavation, 1922: report prepared on behalfofthe Worthing Archaeological Society Szssex

Archaeol Coll 65.69- L I I

Grinsell, LV, 1934 Sussex Barow s Sussex Archaeol Coll'7 5,217-2'7 5

Harding, A, & Lee, G, 1987 Henge monuments and related sites of Great Britain Brilish

Archaeol Rep 175 Oxford

Holgate, R, l99l Prehistoric Flint Mines Shire

Hudson, TP, 1980 The Victoria County History of Sussax 6,pt I

Kinnes, I A,Gibson, A, Ambers, J, Bowman, S, Leese, M, & Boast, R, 1991 Radiocarbon

dating and British Beakers; the British Museum programme Scottish Archaeol Revue 8'35-

68

Longworth, I, 1984 Collered tlrns ofthe Brorue Age in Greqt Britlin and IrelandCambridge

University Press

44.

Longworth, l, & Vamdell, G, 1996 Excavations at Grimes Graves, Norfolk 1972-1976

Fascicule 5 Mining in the deeper mines London: British Museum

Mortimer, RN, 1984 Controls on Upper Cretaceous Sedimentation in the South Downs, with

particular reference to flint distribution; in Seiveking, G de C, & HaI1, MB, eds The Scientific

Study of Flint and Chert,2l-22 Cambridge University Press

Musson, CR, I 9 54 An lllustrated Catalogue of Sussex Beaker and Bronze Age Pottery Slssex

Arc haeol Coll 92, 106-124

Pull, JH, 1923a A Downs Discovery - Blackpatch Prehistoric Mines: an industrial centre in

neolithic times; llorthing HeralcL/Herald Magazine March 3 I st(?) 1923

Pull, JH, 1923b The Downland Flint Mines: system of underground workings explained;

14/ or t h ing H erald/ H erald Magaz ine April 7 th, 1923

Pull, JH, 1923c The Age ofthe Blackpatch Flint Mines: do they date from late Palaeolithic

times: ryorthing Herald/Herald Magozize June 9th, 1923

Pull, JH, 1923d Additional Discoveries at Blackpatch: Bronze Age tumulus re-examined;

lVorthing Herald/Herald Magqzine November 3rd, 1923

Pull, JH, 1923e Blaokpatch: Further Discoveries - the chipping floors and surface occupation

levels; Worthing Heralcl/Herald Magazfue November 24th, 1923

Pull, JH, 1927 Flint Mining in the Bronze Age: An Ancient Burial Discovered at Blackpatch;

lVorthing Herald/Herald Magazine luly 23, 1927

Pull, JH, 1932 The Flint-Miners of Blackpatch Williams & Norgate, London

Pull, JH, & Sainsbury, CE 1928aThe Round Barrows ofBlackpatch: Article no I -Barow 2;

Il or t h i ng H e r al d/ H er a ld Ma gaz ine April 2l, 1 928

Pull, JH, & Sainsbury, CE, 1928b The Round Barrows of Blackpatch: Article no 2 -

Interesting Finds in Banow no 3; Iyorthing Heruld/Herald Magazine Apr|I28,1928

Pull, JH, & Sainsbury, CE, 1928c The Round Barrows ofBlackpatch: Article no 3 -Barow

no 4; llorthing Heralcl/Herold Magazire May 5th, 1928

Pull, JH, & Sainsbury, CE, 1928d The Round Barrows of Blackpatch: Article no 4 - The

Cissbury Type Celt and its Association With the Barrows of the Bronze Age, Worthing

Herald/Herald Magazine May l2('/), 1928

Pull, JH, & Sainsbury, CE, 1928e The Round Barows of Blackpatch: Article no 5 - The Non-

Marine Mollusca; llorthing Herald,/Herald Magazine May 26, 1928

45.

Pull, JH, & Sainsbury, CE, 1928fThe Round Barows of Blackpatch: Article no 6 - The

Beaker Folk; Worthing Herald/Herald Magazine June 9, 1928

Pull, JH, & Sainsbury, CE, 19289 The Round Barrows of Blackpatch: Afticle no 6 - The

Beaker Folk (continued): Worthing Herald/Herald Magazire June 16, 1928

Pull, JH, & Sainsbury, CE, 1928h The Round Barrows of Blackpatch: article no 7 - The

Relative Age ofthe Barrows and Flint Mines; ll/orthing Herald/Herald Magazine June 23

t928

Pull, JH, & Sainsbury, CE, 1928i The Round Barrows ofBlackpatch: Article no 8 - The Early

Bronze Age Culture Worthing Heralcl/Herald Magazine [tly 14, 1928

Pull, JH, & Sainsbury, CE, 1929a The Flint Miners of Blackpatch: Articleno I - BalrowNo.

5; Worthing Herald/Herqld Magazine Aprtl 20, 1929

Pull, JH, & Sainsbury, CE, 1929b The Flint Miners of Blackpatch: Article no 2 - ????;

lltorthing Herald/Herald Magazine May I 1th, 1929

Pull, JH, & Sainsbury, CE, 1929c The Flint Miners of Blackpatch; Article no 3 - A Burial

Beneath a Chipping Floo1' Worlhing Heralcl/Herald Magazine May 11, 1929

Pull, JH, & Sainsbury, CE, 1929d The Flint Miners ofBlackpatch: Article no 4 - The Chalk

Charms from Shaft 6; Worthing Herald/Herald Magazine May 25, 1929

Pufl, JH, & Sainsbury, CE, 1929e The Flint Miners of Blackpatch: Article no 5 - The

Dwellings and Hut Sites; I1/orthing Herald/Herald Magozine Jl:r,e 1, 19)q

Pull, JH, & Sainsbury, CE, 1929fThe Flint Miners ofBlackpatch: Article no 6 - A Colony of

Pull, JH, & Sainsbury, CE, 1929h Servants ofthe Blackpatch Miners: Article no I - The Ox;

Llorthing Herald/Herald Magazine October 19, 1929

Pull, JH, & Sainsbury, CE, 1929i Servants ofthe Blackpatch Miners: Article no 2 - The Pig

and the Sheep; ll/orthing Herald/Herald Magazine October 26, 1929

Pull, JH, & Sainsbury, CE, 1929j Servants of the Blackpatch Miners: Article no 3 - The Wild

Falna; 14/orthing Herald/Herald Magazrte November 9, 1929

Pull, JH, & Sainsbury, CE, 1929k Servants ofthe Blackpatch Miners: Article no 4 - The Red

Deer; Worthin4 Herald/Herald Magazrne November 16, 1929

Pull, JH, & Sainsbury, CE, 1930a Further Discoveries at Blackpatch: First Arti clel. Worthing

Herald/Herald Magazine May 31, 1930

46.

Pull, JH, & Sainsbury, CE, 1930b Further Discoveries at Blackpatch: Second Article;

Worthing Herald/Herald Magazine June 1 , 1930

Pu ll, JH, & Sainsbury, CE, 193 0c Further D iscoveries at Blackpatch: Th ird Article1' Il/orthing

herald/Herald Magazine June 21, 1930

Pull. JH, & Sainsbury, CE, 1930d Further Discoveries at Blackpatch: Fourth Article;

llorthing Herald/Herald Magazine July 5,1930

Pye, E, 1968 The Flint Mines qt Blackpatch, Church Hill andCissbuty, Sussex: A Report on

the Late JH Pull's Excavations 192 2- I 9 5 5. Il ith a reassessmenl of lhe pas ition offlifi mining

in Neolithic and Bronze Age Britain University of Edinburgh unpublished MA Thesis.

Ratcliffe-Densham, HBA, & Ratcliffe-Densham, MM, 1953 A Celtic Farm on Blackpatch

Sussex Arch.teol Coll9l, 69-83

Russell, M, 1996 A reassessmenl of the Bronze Age cemelery-barrow on ltford Hill, East

Srssex Bournemouth Uniyersity School of Conservation Sciences Research Report 2

Stone, JFS, 1933 A middle bronze age umfield on Easton Down Il ilts Archaeol Mag

xLvt,2l8-24

White, S, 1995 A most lovable character Sussex Past and PresenlDecember 1995,

11 ()

\?f

0a

osro fo7

?

,*'04

oo65

BI

Surviving surface features at Blackpatch

47.

t:

RCHMENGLAND

ti

ti

/i/i

/i/i

=y,Nlr'.'\.r'4\\\'

j$t?N

J\llD a,,i

Jti

..!b\l//

-,rr//:? .srul- Slz>n r'?rrrS '/11F

,),k uutn

BlackpatchWest Sussex

ooo

.lO O 100 metres

o^Qo

/oq-AfJ;

0

oq'^oU/

0

BI

Wackpatchest Sussex

ooo/ a

aa

0a; ttaOQ'Qr li

a0_

0

/i

oQbg

0

RCHMENGLAND

a 6ha1l

r'///y ecoit lseen as earttwvorks on 1946 vAPs)

:.: sooil? (seen as liqht croDmarks on 1965 VAPS)

O ho ow (seen as dark cropmarks on 1965 vAPs)t1

10 0 100 metres

///,)

''ra

a{

ti

NAT IO NALMONUMENTS

RECORD

The National Monaments Recoul contains

all the inJormation in this report - and more:

original photographs, plans okl arul new,

the rcsults oJ all RCHME fielil surveys, irulexes oJ

archaeologiul sites and his torical buiklings,

and complete couerage oJ Engla

in air photographs.

efir:Sq75 RoYAL

COMMISSION,'-tHISrOntcelMONUMENTSb'gNGLRItD

The Royal Commission on the Histotical Monumetts oJ England. gathe* irJomatiofl on Englatd's hetitage

aad ptoddes it throtgh thc National Monuments Record

Wo d llide Web: http: / / wtow.rchme.gou.uk

National Monuffients Recotd etquiries: telephote 0179j 114600

Ndtional Monnneflts Record Cefltrc' Grcat Westetn Viltage, Kemble Dit'e, Swindox SN2 2GZ

:tnt::*