Interest in the site was first aroused in 2005 by the throwaway comment from the farmers that Lancaster University had looked at the site some years previously and dismissed it as being of little interest, merely Anglo-Saxon!
This is what was found on a site visit.

The four banks contained quite an assortment of rubbish.

There are references to Masongill in the Victoria County History of Lancashire Vol.VIII as follows:
In 1290 "John, son and heir of Sir John de Tatham gave all his lands of Masongill in Thornton to John de Thornton and Berletta his wife" (p219n)
In 1382 "Sir Thomas de Tunstall granted his manor of Masongill to William de Tunstall (his son,) and Anne (William's wife.) (p233n)

Just south of the potential site there are the remains of very substantial wall footings which suggested that there was a building of some importance here at some time. This conjecture is further supported by the evidence of a cellar or tank which was unearthed during the erection of a building on the walled area in the 1980's (and subsequently filled in.) Could this be connected with the manorial lands referred to?

It therefore looked possible that the "Building" was earlier than the walled structure (because it was outside what looked to be defensive walls.)

The first involvement of IAG was to start a detailed survey of the site (which had been overlooked in the YDNP survey of farms.) The survey of 2006 using a Zeiss-Elta R50 Total Station together with Penmap software is being further extended this year as there is clear evidence of medieval settlement at Masongill Hall in the field to the northwest of the site , A contoured survey of the site in 2006 is shown below.

The "Building" was further surveyed intensively using a rectangular grid at 50cm intervals and the results fed into "Surfer" software producing the following image:

A number of features show very clearly on this image. To the south of the "Building" (shown in grey and blue,) a level and "poached" area (orange and yellow), a possible entrance in the bottom left corner of the "Building" and a  possible internal division which was identified as tipped stone by the farmer.

IAG decided to volunteer their services to remove the tipped rubbish from the site and this took place 17th to 24th May 2007. Participants were Arthur Batty, Chris Bonsall, Carol Howard, Brenda Jackson, Peter Jackson, David Johnson, Carol Ogden and Jeff Price. Over 100 tons of rubbish were removed during the project and happily no noxious, toxic or hazardous articles were encountered. The lion's share of the back-breaking work belongs to Peter Jackson which I am pleased to acknowledge.

The removal of the loose surface rubbish took place on 17th May and it quickly became apparent that picks and shovels would be required to finish the job. It was decided to leave the banks protected by a foot of fill all the way round the inside of the structure.

On 18th May the rubbish was removed on the East side and two facts were established. First the rubbish contained nothing datable to pre-Victorian times and second there was a clean clay surface which was traceable up the sides of the banking. After a group discussion it was decided to use a 1 ton mini-digger to remove the majority of the rubbish as the rate of progress indicated several weeks work using only manual labour.

The existence of two "pits" was quickly revealed with an internal dividing bank of stones and clay. The second pit was cleared by hand to establish its depth.

At this stage it became evident that the dividing line between the internal banking and the tipped stones was difficult to follow and that part of the internal banking had been removed inadvertently as the division had at first been assumed to be the stones which had been tipped by the farm. However its line was clear to see on the banking on the south side and only a small percentage of the banking had been removed.

The pit on the east was relatively shallow.

Whilst the pit on the west side was some 150 cm below the surrounding ground surface.

The rubbish was finally cleared on 24th May 2007.

A large amount of pottery and glass (mainly in the form of intact glass bottles,) was removed. The earliest finds were tentatively identified as late Victorian meat dishes. There was a clear "gradient" of datable finds with the earliest being on the north side of the west pit and the most recent being at the south side. Two possible explanations of the gradient exist. First the ground falls away gently from the North banking but quite steeply from the other banks. If the rubbish was being tipped by horse and cart tipping from the North would be easiest. However there is a clear entrance in the south banking. This can be seen below the shovel where a U-shaped gap is entirely filled with ashes. It is therefore possible that filling was from North to South but using the entrance (although it is quite a steep slope up to the entrance.)

Most of the remains pottery and glass was identifiable as farm related (many sherds of creamers and bottles of drench and scour medicines which were familiar to Arthur Batty from his time working in the 1950's at Braida Garth.) Arthur also talked to Bruce Brownridge (now in his eighties,) who began his working life with Jerry Hartley, the grandfather of the present farmers William and Jeremy Hartley and Gerald Coates. Mr. Brownridge remembers that the pits were being used for rubbish in the 1930's and that he had been told that they were in existence when Mr Hartley first took over the farm (ca. 1906) which certainly fits with the evidence of the finds.

The pits are a puzzle. It is implausible that a farmer would dig pits in which to place rubbish given the many nooks and crannies that exist on an upland farm and they are more likely to have served some other prior purpose. However the suggestions for an agricultural purpose (silage clamp, potato clamp etc.,) are rendered unlikely by its location up a hill above the collecting yard and very close to the beck although it must be said that the pits are remarkably dry especially given the clayey silt which lines them.

It is possible that these are not pits but buildings although the loose condition of the internal banked division together with the absence of earlier datable material indicates that that is unlikely.

The IAG  conducted a second survey of the site on 7th June 2007 with the total station to establish the surface.

A member of the British Geological Survey happened to be working in the same field as the site during the project and tried to take some cores. He quickly ran into problems with very stony ground and only managed 30 to 40 cm of core showing clayey-silt.

IAG dug a sondage 1metre square in the deeper, western pit on 7th September 2007 to rule out the possibility of a floor far more ancient than Victorian! However it seemed  apparent that the pit had been cleared to the natural level (but more information came to light later.)

 

At the same time a 2 metre wide section was taken across the bank and "entrance" to establish whether or not there is a structure under the banking


.

There was a layer of loose stones on top of the rubbish in the entrance and the clay and stone banking shows clearly as a triangle in the upper right of the trench.

A section was cut through the layer of rubbish on the western side of the trench to the clay layer.



At the lowest level of the rubbish in the section itself a piece of pottery was found dated 1942.

It looked as though the banking was simply the clay and stones thrown up during the original digging of the pit when towards the end of the afternoon a feature appeared in which several of the stones were burned.




The presence of the burned stones means that the collection of stones is not natural. It could be the remains of a robbed out wall but at this stage its orientation was not clear i.e. whether it was in the plane of the photo or whether it was perpendicular to the plane of the photo.  If the former the feature might be linked to the distinct "platform" which lies immediately south of the banking.

The mix of clay and smaller stones apparently overlies a core of  larger stones and is convex with rubbish on the northern face which lies above a thin layer of topsoil. This fact will be key to interpreting the feature.

When work was resumed on 10th September  the larger stones were cleaned up and revealed an even more interesting feature than merely a jumble of large stones.



There was a clearly constructed base of large stones with a line of smaller stones almost parallel and a stoned base between. At this stage it was not clear whether the construction followed the line of the banking (i.e. into the plane of the photograph,) or whether it was orthogonal to the banking. It was time to call upon the advice of Robert White and work was suspended until his advice could be given.

On Wednesday 12th  September the advice was given to  extend the trench by a further metre east to establish the orientation and construction of the banking. The western side of the trench occupied by rubbish was to be taken down to a clean surface.


 
The extension shows quite clearly that the surface of the banking has been stoned and that stoning continues on the inner northern face of the banking.



It was decided to follow the stoned surface on the northern face down into the pit area and to investigate whether in fact the bottom was a natural surface as had been supposed when the sondage was dug.

This showed that the stoned surface of the bank does indeed reach down into the “pit” and that what was assumed to be a natural surface may in fact be a laid stone surface. There is a very distinct difference between the clay fill of the bank and the fine, almost sandy, silt of the “floor”.



Overnight stock had been in the trench and dislodged one of the large stones.
The large stones looked as though they might have been laid on top of a pre-existing stone surface because of the angle between the line of large stones and the line of smaller stones with the intervening stoned area shown below.


The two large stones lying immediately below the ranging poles were removed and revealed that the larger stones had indeed been placed on a pre-existing structure.



Work was halted and again Robert White’s advice was sought.

At this stage the evidence may be summarised as follows.

The rubbish from Victorian times onwards overlies a thin layer of top soil and therefore the “pits” were not dug in Victorian times but were pre-existing features which were utilised for disposing of rubbish.

The inner core of the bank is a constructed feature of which the base of large stones seems to have been placed on a pre-existing surface of much smaller stones. It is possible that this stone surface may have been laid as a contemporaneous base for the larger stones although that seems a curious procedure. The difference in alignment between the line of larger stones and the “edge” of the stoned surface is also difficult to explain as being contemporary. Why not simply line up the larger stones with the edge ?

There has been a total lack of datable material so far from the entrance excavation although the construction of the inner core of the bank suggests that  it is pre-medieval and that the bank does not consist of earthed over wall ruins.

The surface of the bank has been deliberately stoned. The stones look to be too sorted to be the result of natural soil erosion.

There is no evidence whatsoever to date as to the purpose of the construction. The fact that there are two levels within the banking, (probably two entrances as well,) with an internal bank division raises interesting questions which might warrant further investigation.

Following Robert White's final visit to the site it was agreed to postpone further excavation until next season when the entrance will be further excavated (providing some dateable evidence with any luck) and the bottom of the pit will be further investigated to resolve whether or not the surface is natural or a laid paved area.

Jeff Price

19th October 2007