IRON-AGE CART/CHARIOT BURIALS

Researched and compiled by Richard Hayton
and Andre Brannan

When first asked if I would like to attempt to provide a history for the use of and discovery of these very special archaeological finds, I was a little nervous to say the least.  While I have an avid and enthusiastic interest in things archaeological, it is far removed from creating a text suitable enough and erudite enough to cater for all tastes and levels of knowledge.  However, not to be daunted by the task, here, for what it is worth, is my account of the iron-age cart/chariot burials of Yorkshire.  Apart from a very recent discovery of another at Newbridge near Edinburgh, they are unique to Yorkshire, although not to Europe as a whole.  They are not to be found, or rather, they have not been found anywhere else in England. 

It has become necessary, due to the constraints of this format, to divide this subject into three sections. The first deals with those discoveries made by Victorian and Edwardian antiquarians and archaeologists, for which read on; the second with those made since but before the year 2000 AD inclusive of 1971, which marks the time when chariot burials were once more being discovered; and the third section which discusses the chariot-burials since 2000 AD.

For those who wish to move on directly to the more modern excavations, click here
Section Two

For those wishing to be directed to the most recent finds, click here for
Section Three

Also, there is a slight discrepancy with the subject matter, and the thrust of the web site.  By the very definition of these burials, they are, rather than historic, PRE historic.  However, to be pedantic, they date from the very dawn of written history in Europe.  Carts, or as they are also called, chariots as used by the Celtic, or rather the Iron Age peoples of Europe, were described by Roman historians.  We are therefore safe, with regard to the time period, to include them here. 

The use of the generic title of ‘Celtic – Celts’ in England, is by many, frowned upon, but that is not a discussion for here and now, enough to say only that I will endeavour to adhere to the term Iron Age rather than Celtic. 

For a prosaic explanation of this, see http://www.britainexpress.com/History/Celtic_Britain.htm
For a ‘Celtic’ timeline see http://www.lost-civilizations.net/celtic-civilization.html

It is I feel, necessary at the start to provide a glossary of terms to which the uninitiated can refer from time to time should the need arise.  I have decided to locate it here, where it can be easily found, and returned to if required.  It is not a long list, but the terms are specialised, and do require some explanation.  It also negates the requirement to explain such terms within the body of the text, and therefore, saves me time too!!

Glossary of Terms:

It is necessary to begin with defining what is meant by a cart/chariot of the Iron Age.  The approach of archaeologists and historians tends to vary over time about which appellation to apply to the vehicles.  Depending on the age of the text encountered either can be employed, but I have been advised that the most recent trend is to call them chariots, so henceforth, within this text, they shall be so referred to.  It should be bourn in mind however, if anyone does decide to follow up on this article, then they will most certainly happen across them being called carts.  In Yorkshire, these chariots have all been two wheeled vehicles, but on continental Europe, four wheeled vehicles have been discovered, these can more reliably be called carts.  Possibly one reason for the dichotomy of titles has been the envisaged use of them.  Chariots indicate a warlike vehicle, while cart indicates nothing other than a mode of transport, an Iron Age motorcar, if you will.  Is becomes a requirement therefore to briefly examine the possibility of each usage.  For the advocates of chariots as war machines there are Roman sources to scrutinise.  Caesar, writing of his abortive expedition to British shores in 55 B.C. said of their chariots in his Gallic Wars book V, chapter xxx,  “Their mode of fighting with their chariots is this: firstly, they drive about in all directions and throw their weapons and generally break the ranks of the enemy with the very dread of their horses and the noise of their wheels; and when they have worked themselves in between the troops of horse, leap from their chariots and engage on foot. The charioteers in the mean time withdraw some little distance from the battle, and so place themselves with the chariots that, if their masters are overpowered by the number of the enemy, they may have a ready retreat to their own troops. Thus they display in battle the speed of horse, [together with] the firmness of infantry; and by daily practice and exercise attain to such expertness that they are accustomed, even on a declining and steep place, to check their horses at full speed, and manage and turn them in an instant and run along the pole, and stand on the yoke, and thence betake themselves with the greatest celerity to their chariots again.”
[ http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/  C. Julius Caesar. Caesar's Gallic War. Translator. W. A. McDevitte. Translator. W. S. Bohn. 1st Edition. New York. Harper & Brothers. 1869. Harper's New Classical Library.  OCLC: 25172949]

The alternative usage of the vehicle is evidenced from among other things, archaeological excavations of recently discovered chariot burials the inhumations of which have contained “The box-like feature observed in all the recently excavated cart-burials surely represents the box-body of the cart …….. the box-body was buried, apparently inverted to form a canopy over the corpse.” 
[New Light on the Parisi Edited by P. Halken ERAS 1989 p 5  ISBN 0 905218 03 5]

Such a box-body, when attached to the basic framework of the vehicle, the chassis if you will, would, apart from forming a burial canopy, also have provided the owner in life with a vehicle for transporting him/her self in relative comfort, with the box lined in furs and fleeces.  Such a vehicle could no doubt have been used for the transportation of goods too, but there is no evidence to support the idea, other than common sense.  What they had then it seems is a single chassis able to be converted from one use to another with relative ease, so that in one scenario, a warrior could ride to a battle field in his more comfortable box, and upon arriving, he/she and the driver could then replace the box with the fighting platform, and vice-versa after such an interlude.  Both platforms would have been suspended by means of leather thongs, which would have hooked onto each platform by means of a lug at each corner.  Changing them over would then be a simple matter of unhooking one set of lugs, and hooking up the other.
“Meet the Ancestors” BBC2, presented by Julian Richards c2002

The last word on this debate must go to Dr. Ian Stead, who has been and remains yet, one THE authorities on the subject.  His name, as readers will see, is plastered all over this text, and rightly, for no such research can succeed in this subject without reference to Dr. Stead.
My thanks to him for his personal thoughts on this matter:
“As for chariot/cart burials, I prefer cart.  The problem with chariot is that it conjures up pictures of war chariots or racing chariots - though of course it is a much more romantic title, and I often use it in speech.  Cart is much more general and gives a better image of what we know of the vehicle.  There is no reason to suppose that it was used for war or racing.  In its final usage it was perhaps a hearse, certainly used for women as well as men, and it may well have spent its life as a universal means of light transport.” 
[Dr. Stead’s comments here, exclusive to www.yorkshirehistory.com is not an endorsement for the contents or presentation of this article. RH]

As will be seen later, the Rev. Stillingfleet refers to these vehicles as British Esseda, which, upon further investigation means:  ESSEDA or ESSEDUM (from the Celtic Ess, a carriage, Ginzrot, vol. i p377), the name of a chariot used, especially in war, by the Britons, the Gauls and Belgae (Virg. Georg. iii.204; Servius, ad loc.); and also by the Germans (Pers. vi.47).
According to the account given by Caesar (Bell. Gall. iv.33), and agreeably to the remarks of Diodorus Siculus (v.21, 29), the method of using the essedum in the ancient British army was very similar to the practice of the Greeks in the heroic ages, as described by Homer, and in the article Currus. The principal difference seems to have been that the essedum was stronger and more ponderous than the di/froj, that it was open before instead of behind; and that in consequence of these circumstances and the width of the pole, the owner was able, whenever he pleased, to run along the pole (de temone Britanno excidet, (Juv. iv.125), and even to raise himself upon the yoke, and then to retreat with the greatest speed into the body of the car, which he drove with extraordinary swiftness and skill. From the extremity of the pole, he threw his missiles, especially the cateia (Val. Flacc. Argon. vi.83). It appears also that these cars were purposely made as noisy as possible, probably by the creaking and clanging of the wheels (strepitu rotarum, Caes. l.c.; compare Tacit. Agric. 35; Esseda multisonora, Claud. Epig. iv); and that this was done to strike dismay into the enemy. The formidable British warriors who drove these chariots, the "car-borne" of Ossian, were called in Latin Essedarii (Caes. B. G. iv.24; Cic. ad Fam. vii.6). There were about 4000 of them in the army of Cassibelaunus (Caes. B. G. v.19). Having been captured, they were sometimes exhibited in the gladiatorial shows at Rome, and seem to have been great favourites with the people (Sueton. Calig. 35, Claud. 21 ). They must have held the highest rank in the armies of their own country; and Tacitus (Agric. 12) observes that the driver of the car ranked above his fighting companion, which was the reverse of the Greek usage.
The essedum was adopted for purposes of convenience and luxury among the Romans (Propert. ii.1.76; Cic. ad Att. vi.1; Ovid Am. ii.16.49). Cicero (Phil. ii.24) mentions the use of it on one occasion by the tribune of the people as a piece of extravagance; but in the time of Seneca, it seems to have been much more common; for he (Epist. 57) reckons the sound of the "essedae transcurrentes" among those noises which did not distract him. As used by the Romans, the essedum may have differed from the CISIUM in this; that the cisium was drawn by one horse (see woodcut, p288), the essedum always by a pair. The essedum, like the cisium, appears to have been kept for hire at the post-houses or stations (Salonum quinto essedo videbis, Mart. x.104) [Mansio]. The essedum must have been similar to the Covinus, except that the latter had a cover.
[http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/secondary/SMIGRA*/Esseda.html]

It is however necessary to begin at the beginning, rather than the Romanised end, so we have to ask, when, in Britain did the Iron Age commence?  “The transition from Bronze Age to Iron Age is now dated to the eighth century BC, the clearest archaeological indicator being the cessation of bronze hoarding, although this was not simultaneous across Britain.  Despite the marked break in depositional practice, subsistence, settlement, and pottery all show considerable continuities across the transition in most areas …..” 
“When and why the transition to iron use occurred in different parts of Britain are key questions for future research.  As yet we have very little idea of the mechanisms of this process.  Iron was used to make some objects before the end of the Bronze Age and gradually becomes more common in the archaeological record between the eighth and third centuries BC.  ……. If the cessation of bronze hoarding and the adoption of iron for utilitarian objects are indeed related – as seems likely – this implies that iron was already common by the eighth century BC…..”
[ http://www.personal.rdg.ac.uk/~lascretn/IAAgenda.htm#A ]

It has only recently been discovered that iron mining and working started in what was to become East Yorkshire very early in the new era with substantial finds in the area of the Fowlness basin, just west of the Wolds Scarp. 
[ http://www.ironmasters.hull.ac.uk/index.cfm ]

The economic activities of the people of the Fowlness valley were not restricted to agriculture.  Early work in the Holme Project located an iron industry, though its full significance has only been recognised recently.  The large slag blocks excavated at Moore’s Farm, in 1985 (Millet 1986; and Halkon 1995) have been carbon 14 dated from charcoal to 450-250 Cal. BC and 600-380 Cal. BC.  The 5,338kg of slag, which was recorded there, makes this one of the largest iron working sites of this period yet discovered in Britain.
[Further Light on the Parisi, Peter Halkon, pp 14, ISBN 0 902 122 82 7]

Given that the chariot-burials are predominantly on higher ground than the many settlements recorded by Halkon, suggests that the Wolds were then considered a place of reverence, a place suitable for them to have access to their ancestors at the time of their passing.  Some discoveries of Iron Age settlement in the locality of some of the graves however, indicate that the up-lands was not a place exclusively for the dead.

The Iron Age is its self, subdivided into two distinct phases.  Due to certain lacks in our knowledge of the time, the earliest sub-section, the period between 800 BC and about 500 BC are “poorly understood ”.  Regional variations in the chronology, and a lack of hard dating evidence account largely for this.  There then comes another transition period generally accepted to lie between 500 and 300 BC, when economic and social changes have become easier to understand.  Settlement expansion after 300 BC, given national variations, and the growth in scale of agriculture and craft production, provide what many view as THE Iron Age, the pre-Roman Britons, with their round houses in small but numerous settlements.  In East Yorkshire, in particular the Wolds and the valleys and plains dissecting them, where located what have been called the ARRAS culture.  This is not an ancient name, but a quite recent one given possibly by the discoverer and excavator of some of their barrows in the 2^nd half of the 19^th century, at the farm called Arras, just east of Market Weighton, Canon William Greenwell, more of whom later.  The period of the 300 years before the Roman arrival was marked by the permeation of another Iron Age culture out of modern day Switzerland who have been named after the place where they also were originally located, La Tene, a village near the Neuenberger, also called Lac du Neuchatel.
[http://www.searchspaniel.com/index.php/La_Tene]

La Tene art-forms radiated out from their homelands to much of the known Iron Age culture across northern Europe.  In England, particularly this artistic, and maybe even cultural influence was most manifest in the ARRAS of East Yorkshire.  According to one source, “In the western fringe of Europe the continuity of the indigenous traditions is far more impressive than similarity with Pan-European La Tene culture.  The conclusion must be that the folk movements which effected so much of Europe left this peripheral zone largely unscathed.  This is not to imply that the region [north-western Europe including the British Isles] received no migrant groups.  A number of vehicle burials found in Yorkshire, which belong to the locally named Arras culture, have very close similarities to those of the Seine valley and northern France.  This has suggested to many that the burials reflect an immigrant elite, an observation which gains further support from the similarity of the tribal name, Parisi*, and that of the Parisi in the Seine valley.  The alternative view, that the elite was indigenous, and was simply adopting ‘foreign’ burial mode to distinguish its self cannot, however, be ruled out.”
[Prehistoric Europe an Illustrated History edited by Barry Cunliffe, Oxford University Press,  pp 368, 1997, ISBN 0 19 288063 2.]

Furthermore, according to another excellent source, “the East Yorkshire Arras culture is no longer considered to be the result of any large scale invasion or influx from the continent.  Settlement research, for example at Wetwang Slack and North Cave, and particularly the analysis of domestic pottery, has made a strong claim for the continuity of occupation in the region, from well before the fourth century BC to the Roman period.”
[The Arras Culture: Robert Van de Noort, An Historical Atlas of East Yorkshire, The University of Hull Press, p. 24, 1996, ISBN 0 85958 652 9]

Dr. Stead on the subject of chronology wrote: “Most of the artefacts from the Yorkshire cart-burials are distinctively British types, which is a major difficulty when chronology is considered.  In the century after Caesar’s expeditions British Iron Age chronology gradually increases in credibility, achieving really well-dated contexts by Claudian times.  But in the centuries before Caesar [i.e. Julius Caesar RH] artefacts provide scant evidence of date, and chronology is vague and sketchy in the extreme.  As long-lived types and survivals can be dated in the approach to the Roman period, so the imbalance between virtually no early dates and some secure late dates inevitably favours low chronologies.  Never-the-less, of the artefact-types found in the cart-burials only the King’s Barrow [see later] linchpin resembles a form which also occurs in the first century AD.  There are closer parallels with the types represented by metal-working debris at Gussage-All-Saints a deposit probably dating from the first century BC – where horse-bits, terrets and linchpins comparable with those from Arras were produced.  These types may well have been in use before the first century BC, but there is little in the way of evidence.  The Arras horse-bit is related to one in a La Tene I burial at Somme-Tourbe (Marne) – although the orientation of the links in the French example is more akin to Irish bits.  The Danes Graves [see later] linchpin can be matched in the La Tene I burials in Champagne, and also at Manching where it is more likely to have been La Tene I than III. ……… The British cart-burials may belong to the first century BC – perhaps some could be later; there are hints that the tradition started as early as c400 BC; unfortunately as yet we have no means of measuring progress through the fourth, third, and second centuries BC.  Our nine [then] burials could span several hundred years.”  
[Keltski Voz; 1984, Cart Burials in Britain, Ian Stead, pp39-40]

* The term Parisi originates from Ptolemy’s (Claudius Ptolemaeus c.90 – 168 AD) Geographica II 3.10, which says little other than:
“beside the gulf suitable for a harbor, are the Parisi and the city Petuaria 20°40' 56°40'.”  Or, as it appears in the original greek ‘Πετοναρία’.
[http://www.romanmap.com/htm/ptolemy/pt3_10.htm]

[An Atlas of Roman Britain Barri, Jones & David Mattingly]

Dr. Ian Stead made a full appraisal of Yorkshire’s chariot-burials in 1979, which no self-respecting follow-up can ignore.   In this he compares all aspects of Yorkshire vehicle burials with those of Continental Europe.   “Vehicle burial’ is used here as a general term to cover both ‘cart burial’ (two wheels) and ‘wagon burial’ (four wheels).  Vehicle burial can thus be used to translate exactly the French ‘sepulture a char’ and the German ‘wagengrab’ in instances where it is not clear whether four or two wheels were found, or where the term is used to cover both cart-burials and waggon-burials.  ‘Chariot burial’ has been discarded because it has often been taken to imply that the vehicle was a war chariot.  The well known engravings of cart burials in Champagne, showing the skeleton accompanied by weapons, naturally suggest that the vehicle was also part of the warrior’s panoply.  But not all cart-burials are associated with weapons – even in Champagne – and in Yorkshire weapons are absent.  Furthermore, on the continent there is a continuity in tradition between burials with Hallstatt and La Tene carts (pp. 26 and 28), and the wagons are unlikey to have been used in war.  Both Hallstatt and La Tene vehicles were probably regarded in the same light when placed in the grave, possibly in a limited funerary capacity, carrying the corpse to the grave, or perhaps going beyond that and speeding the journey to the other world. 
Yorkshire cart-burials may be divided into two groups: those in which the vehicle has been dismantled; and those in which it has been buried complete.  The former group is the better documented, for in 1897 an example was excavated at Danes Graves by Mortimer and Greenwell and a fairly detailed account with a plan was published (fig. 5); recently, in 1971, another was excavated with very great care by Brewster, at Garton Slack, and useful interim notices have been published, although the full report is not yet available.”   Also, “The more common Yorkshire rite, in which the cart had been dismantled, cannot be matched in a La Tene context on the continent; a burial at Husby, Kr. Flesburg, Schleswig Holstein, held a dismantled cart but it was accompanied by a cremation and is well beyond the geographical limits of La Tene culture (Raddatz 1967).  Other La Tene III cremations contained parts of vehicles, but there can be no question of a direct link with Yorkshire.  Dismantled carts do seem to occur in Late Hallstatt times, in eastern France and in Switzerland, but the records are unfortunately inadequate.”  All of which seems to point to the Yorkshire chariot-burials not being linked in any significant ritual manner to those of European burial rites.
[The Arras Culture, Ian Stead, The Yorkshire Philosophical Society, York, 1979 – Chariot Burials pp 20 – 29, ISBN 902 357 034]

The references to Yorkshire sites made by Dr. Stead will be explained herein as we progress falteringly along the timeline.  One of the very first, if not the first, discoveries of a chariot burial was made in the early 19^th century, at the farm of Arras, near Market Weighton, in the East Riding.  It is from the name of the farm that the title of ARRAS Culture derives, although who was the first to coin the phrase is in doubt.  It is the ‘Arras’ people who are, as far as is known, responsible for the following graves and their contents.
The name Arras derives from Erg, which passes through Hergus and erghus to become Arras in the 16th century. Whilst passing along the road between York and Hull in 1699, Abraham De la Pryme noticed a large group of small burial mounds which he thought were Roman. It was not until 1815 that a group of local gentry, Barnard Clarkson from Holme on Spalding Moor, Rev W. Stillingfleet and Thomas Hull from Beverley opened the barrows. At the time of digging over a hundred were visible above the ground. Due to several hundred years of ploughing none are now visible apart from appearing as crop marks.
http://www.ironmasters.hull.ac.uk

In February of 1847, a letter was read to the monthly meeting of the Archaeological Institute in London, written by the Rev. Edward William Stillingfleet, vicar of South Cave.  The letter was addressed to Charles Newton Esq., dated January 28^th 1847, and described events of some forty years previous.  He wrote: “Having obtained permission from the proprietors of the estates and their tenants, at occasional opportunities during the summer months of the years 1815, 1816, and 1817, I joined a party, which was formed for the purpose of opening a group of barrows, at Arras and Hessleskew, on the south-western boundary of the Yorkshire Wolds.”  After some speculation regarding the likelihood of a “British tribe” in the area, and discoursing the topography of the area in question, the Rev. Stillingfleet later continues:
“In his indefatigable, and most interesting researches on the Wiltshire Downs, Sir Richard Colt  Hoare** had not the good fortune to discover any barrow of a British charioteer.  We discovered two.” [My emphasis R.H.] “That in which the articles here represented were found, is situated on the very edge, and to the north of the present turn-pike road.  The elevation of this barrow was uncertain from the circumstance of its crown having been levelled, probably at the time when the turn-pike road was formed; its diameter was from eight to nine yards.  The cist was nearly a circle of eleven or twelve feet.” [The word ‘cist’ here pronounced the same as ‘kissed’, means a coffin or burial chamber made of stone or a hollowed out tree – OED.]
** The Ancient History of South Wiltshire. London, published by William Miller, printed by W. Bulmer and Co., 1812.  Sir Richard Colt Hoare (1758-1838) was the grandson of Henry Hoare, the banker, who had laid out the gardens at Stourhead. At the beginning Colt Hoare was only called upon to finance Cunnington’s enterprise of recording all that could be discovered about the inhabitants of Wiltshire from prehistoric to Roman times. In the course of the preparations though he acquired a rapidly growing interest and knowledge, became a collaborator, and was soon described by a fellow enthusiast as “barrow mad”. Colt Hoare wrote the work with the support of William Cunnington who had assembled much of the archaeological information on excavation sites but died in 1810. Stephen and John Parker did the actual excavation work, while Philip Crocker made all the surveys and executed the detailed drawings for the plates.
[http://www.polybiblio.com/quaritch/%7BAP50%7D.html]

Stillingfleet continues: “In a cist, as just observed, almost circular, excavated to a depth of about a foot and a half in chalky rock, and upon a nearly smooth pavement, the skeleton of a British charioteer presented its self; surrounded by what in life formed the sources of his pride and delight, and no inconsiderable part of his possessions.”  The letter continues to tell, in considerable detail of the discovery, which I have decided to include here almost in full.  While it cannot be said to be concise, it can be seen as a window into early 19^th century archaeological methodology, when that science was in its very infancy, as also was the reporting of any such finds.  The letter, therefore continues:
“The head of this charioteer was placed to the north, with an eastern inclination.  He rested on his back, his arms crossed on his breast, and his thigh and leg bones, when bared, presented to the eye what may be termed a singular grained [sic] work: both the thigh and leg bones appearing to have been crossed in opposite directions.  Very near to his head were found the heads of two wild boars [a not uncommon votive offering also found in other such inhumations R.H.].  Inclining from the skeleton, on each side, had been placed a wheel [My emphasis R.H.]; the iron tire [sic] and ornaments of the nave of the wheel [see diagram R.H.] only remaining.  The tire [sic] of the wheel to the east of the body was found perfect in the ground; but unfortunately it broke into several pieces on removal, owing to its corroded state.  Small fragments of the original oak still adhered to the iron.  In diameter, these wheels had been a trifle more than two feet eleven inches; the width of the iron tire about one inch five eighths.  The diameter of the ornaments of iron, plated with copper and varnished green [now known to be verdigris, a bright bluish green encrustation or patina formed on copper or brass by atmospheric oxidisation OED], which had encircled the nave as a kind of rim, was nearly six inches” [called these days – nave rings – see diagram R.H.].  Stillingfleet then continues to describe the discovery of two skeletal horses, one beneath each wheel, postulating that due to the lengths of their respective leg bones, although they were not of the same height, neither stood more than 13 hands.*  He then continues to quote Caesar’s description of the chariots, in Latin, see above translation.  Continuing then: “On the western side of the British charioteer were found two very singular articles of the length of five inches, round at one end, and curved at the other; of iron plated with green-varnished copper, which our workmen called linch-pins.”  It seems to me astonishing to say the least, that workmen of the Wolds area should so rightly [it seems] ascribe the usage of items buried in the ground for two millennia.  One has to ask, were similar such items still used by land workers on their own horses at the time of the excavation?  The described ‘linchpins’ sound remarkably similar to those later to be discovered at Wetwang in the 21^st century.
“Whatever had been their use, similar articles were exhibited at York amongst Lord Prudhoe’s discoveries at Stanwick, [North Yorkshire],  which are now deposited in the British Museum.  Besides these, (in different parts of the barrow, but all I think, on the western side,) were found two little rings, three-quarters of an inch in diameter; and five buckles, semicircular, of various sizes, in some of which the tongue still remained.  These buckles undoubtedly belonged to the harness; and their fellows may be seen in the Stanwick collection. (Compare plate iv fig. 4.)
“On the same side, near the legs of the skeleton, were found two other appendages of the equipage of this British charioteer, in full length about ten inches.  They are formed by two substantial rings, of the outer diameter of three inches and a quarter, joining on strong globular links, being tied together by another strong double link of two inches three quarters long.  Like the rest of the articles found, they are of iron, plated in copper coated green; and the large rings have a pretty chain pattern running round them.  These articles would generally be pronounced to be the bits of bridles; and a general verdict must be received.  Objects similar to these have often been discovered, and may be seen, both in the Stanwick, and Polden Hill collections.  One of the most intricate in its form, appears to have been that which was purchased by Dr. Stukeley, and pronounced, by that learned antiquary, to have belonged to the harness of a British chariot.”  There then follows some discourse concerning the then known burial practices of the “British”, and comparing them with other similar Continental burials.

“this barrow was laid open with great success, and afforded a valuable evidence as to the mode in which the British charioteer, of renown in his day, had been entombed.  In fact we brought into day-light a concealed mausoleum dedicated to his memory and fame: more durable than the splendid architectural mausoleum of a refined age, and perhaps as rational.  The uncivilised Brigantian [My emphasis R.H.], after surrounding the remains of his chieftain with memorials of his character, rank, and celebrity, raised a simple mound; and “bade it speak to other years.”  The skull of the skeleton was that of an old man.  The labourers were certain that he “must have been a king,” and as we could not contradict them, we named this “the King’s Barrow” [My emphasis R.H.], to distinguish it from the sepulchre of another British charioteer whose remains were found in the ground of Hessleskew.  Curious to note the Rev. Stillingfleet refers to the burials as being Brigantian rather than Parisiian, as most [I would imagine], scholars of that time would have been aware of Ptolemy’s maps and his Geographica.  The significance of Stillingfleet naming this, and the subsequent barrow burial means their identification, if not their precise location, can be placed in the chronology for discovering these features.  However, very recent discoveries made at the Ferrybridge chariot-burial, may make a rethink on this necessary, more in section two.
*An analysis of the remaining bones of the horses discovered in the King’s Grave has been made, and possibly confirms Stillingfleet’s original contention that there were two animals in the burial. Measurements using the modification of Kiesewalter’s factors provide for respective standing heights of 1.32m and 1.30m at the withers is within the range of variation of a single horse.  However, measurements of the teeth shows an animal of about 9-10 years, while the mandible in the burial is from an aged horse of some 25+ years.  The results are therefore inconclusive.
[Keltski Voz, 1984; Ian Stead, Cart-burials in Britain, appendix by A.J. Legge]

Stillingfleet continues:
“This Charioteer’s Barrow [at Hessleskew] was small. It had been levelled nearly to the adjacent surface of the soil; was not elevated so much as by two feet in its summit; and in diameter about eight feet.  Yet, in this barrow we found an ancient North Briton resting on his shield; his skull partially marked by corrosion from the verdigrease [sic] of its bosses.  I am sorry that I omitted noting how many bosses there were; but one of them, nearly entire, measures four and a half inches in diameter.  It is thin, and of the material usually found in this group.  On discovery, a small portion of wood of the shield adhered to this boss.  It was surrounded by a thin rim of the same material; we also found a part of the iron rim of the shield, much corroded, and, in that state, about one inch in width: all supporting the opinion, that ancient British shields were not large in size [some vertical and horizontal measurements would here have been helpful, as so many other aspects were so diligently measured. R.H.]  Inclining from the body of the British warrior, both on the western and eastern side [indicating the skeleton was aligned north/south as in the previous burial], had been placed a wheel and a bridle bit, with iron rings which belonged to the chariot, or to its trappings.  These bits were of iron, without any coat of brass, corroded by age, and somewhat resembled the harsh snaffle-bit of our own horse-breakers.  One bit was taken out almost entire; the other was injured by the workmen.  The diameter of the wheels was only about two feet eight inches: a sufficient indication of the lightness of the British chariot.  The diameter of the rim of the nave of these wheels, also of iron, was about five inches.  Oak was still attached to part of the tire [sic] of the wheels, and the nails which had been used as rivets, were entire.  The tire [sic] of only one of them was perfectly traced in the ground, with its nave; and unfortunately even that broke into pieces on removal from its earthen bed.  Two wide boar’s tusks had been placed on the body of this British charioteer.  One of them had been enclosed in a singular kind of outer case of thin brass.  It was found in good condition, perforated by a square hole, by which it had probably been suspended from the neck or girdle of the hunter.  The case was adapted to the curve of the boar’s tusk; and in a straight line measures five inches.  The length of the boar’s tusk itself is four and a half.  It has evidently been polished; has a diamond pattern engraved on its top to the length of three quarters of an inch, and a square hole bored through it, corresponding with the hole in its case.”  There is then a brief paragraph concerning a lack of similar objects, which has been marginally annotated by an anonymous hand that is sadly, indecipherable, at least on my copy.  The narrative continues:
“the discoveries of this barrow, record the interment of a warrior, a mighty hunter, and a person of celebrity in his day and amongst the people of his clan; glorying in the chace [sic] after an animal said to have been scarcely less savage than the wolf; and reluctant that the memory of his deeds should be consigned to oblivion.  Had it not been for the material of which the boss of the shield and the case of the boar’s tusk is formed, we might have regarded this interment as of a prior date to that of the regal charioteer.  And may it not lawfully be so regarded? May not this, if either, have been the war chariot; while the king’s equipage more nearly resembled that of a British **Esseda, which figured at a later date on the fashionable drives of ancient Rome?  Dr. Stukely quotes authority to shew, that Celtic bridles were curiously wrought; and regards the circumstance of the bridle found at Silbury Hill being perfectly plain and rude as an argument of its great antiquity.   
**ESSEDA see above for detailed definition. 
“These remarks are submitted to the candour and indulgence of the members of the Archaeological Institute.  A country clergyman, occupied by professional engagements, with only such opportunities for research as are afforded in a secluded situation, may lawfully be excused for venturing on little beyond matter-of-fact statements.  Yet, after all, matter-of-fact statements are not among the least valuable.  It is by the collation of discoveries made in our own islands with the result of the researches of our northern continental neighbours that a mass of evidence will in due time be collected, in regard to the customs of the various tribes, who have peopled Britain, in different eras.  We shall thence become far better acquainted with the habits, manners, pursuits, and commerce of our remote ancestors …..
I am, dear Sir, Your faithful servant, Edward William Stillingfleet.” 
Doc. YE/571/226,233
My thanks to the staff of Beverley Reference & Local Studies Library, Champney Road, Beverley East Yorkshire for making the above document available.

The reverend’s sentiments made one hundred and fifty years ago, still hold good today, for as much as progress has been made in researching, locating, excavating, recording, and, hopefully, conserving Iron age sites and artefacts, much is still left unresolved, our knowledge remains far from complete. 

Another reverend gentleman, Canon William Greenwell, had decided to return to Arras farm site, where he discovered, in 1877, what was to be called the ‘Lady’s Grave’, named by Fox (1958: 6), according to Dr. Stead, in keeping with the titles given by the excavators of the other three important Arras grave groups.  This grave was another found by chance during the excavation of a chalk pit, and Greenwell recorded the finds.  These are repeated by Dr. Stead, and herein by me, from Stead [1979: pp. 22] “Under a barrow 14 feet (4.3m) diameter and 1½ feet (45cm) high was a huge circular grave 12 feet (3.6m) diameter and 3 feet (1m) deep.  About the middle of the grave was the skeleton of a woman (identified by Rolleston, see the report in Greenwell 1877: 457) on its left side, with the head at the north end (Greenwell 1906: 284, but at the west end in 1877: 454) and accompanied by bones of two pigs.  According to the workmen who uncovered the grave the skeleton had been extended; beyond that it is not clear how much of the layout of this grave Greenwell himself observed and how much he learnt from the workmen.
“Under the head of the woman was a mirror.  Behind the back were the iron tyres of two wheels laid partially one over the other, and within each tyre were two bronze hoops, those of the corresponding naves, and a circular piece of iron.  In front of the face were two bits laid slightly above the bottom of the grave” (Greenwell 1906: 284-5).  A small bronze object, possibly the shank of a whip, was also found in the grave, and in examining the spoil thrown out by the workmen, Greenwell discovered a terret.”
[The Arras Culture, Ian Stead, the Yorkshire Philosophical Society, York, 1979 – chariot-burials, pp 22, ISBN 902 357 034]

In May 1906, Thomas Sheppard F.G.S., Curator of the Municipal Museums in Hull, heard tell of an unusual discovery made at Hunmanby, which lies between Flamborough Head and Scarborough.  He and two other gentlemen excavated what was left of a tumulus after a landslip had removed some of it into the clay pit adjacent.  “The objects exposed by the recent landslip were a bronze bridle-bit, and fragments of thin bronze plate.
“Attention was first paid to the slipped mass of gravel.  This was carefully examined, and yielded the iron hoop of a chariot wheel, though it was in several fragments.  The hoop is slightly over an inch in width, but on account of its oxidised state, it is not possible to ascertain the exact original thickness of the iron.  The rim appears to have been turned inwards on each side.  Sand and small pebbles adhered to the tyre.  From the specimens obtained the diameter of the wheel was calculated to have been nearly three feet.  Portions of the iron hoops for the naves were also secured.  These appear to be of a thicker material, and, if complete, would be six or seven inches across.”   Sheppard continues to describe how some elements of wood remained attached to both iron hoops, and explains that no traces of spokes, nor the number of spokes were discovered.  He also says that some other non-descript pieces of iron were found, about which all he said was that they were curved.  He then moves on to explain the remaining grave section, describing the grave pit as “basin shaped”, with one end about six inches deeper than the other.  The dimensions of the grave are stated as being 11 feet 6 inches across the top, and, 3 feet 6 inches deep, measured to the original ground level.  He states that towards the bottom of the grave was a quantity of greyish material, with the peculiar “greasy” feeling so characteristic in places of that nature.  Perhaps, if any modern day archaeologist happens to read this, they might be able to explain whether the “greasy” feel of the layer had anything to do with the inhumation, or whether it is a natural occurrence, or indeed if it really exists.
Sheppard then explains the discovery of traces of bronze within the grave, stating that some was so thin, and so badly corroded as to not bear touching, while some other was in the form of a “beading or tube cut horizontally, about a quarter of an inch wide.”  He then continues “After several hours’ work it was seen that lying on the bottom of the grave was a large shield of wood, apparently oak, ornamented on the upper surface with exceedingly thin plates of bronze, and with a border formed of more substantial material – a strip of bronze, about one-sixteenth of an inch in thickness, and three-quarters of an inch in width.  This had been carefully hammered over into a U section, into which the edge of the wood shield was clearly fitted.  This bronze strip was fastened to the wood be means of small bronze rivets, about a quarter of an inch long, exactly the thickness and shape of an ordinary house-hold pin-head.  Unfortunately the greater part of this shield had fallen with the land-slip, and with the exception of a few pieces of bronze, forming the border, not any of it was recovered; nor is this to be wondered at, as even in that portion examined in position both wood and its ornamental plates were so fragile an decayed, that they would not bear touching.”  As far as I am aware, nothing now remains of this shield, if shield it was, which is a shame, as so few have survived.  It might have ranked not only alongside the Battersea shield, but also the Witham Shield [See ‘Celtic Art and Design’, Iain Zaczek, Studio Editions, 1995, pp 14, ISBN 1 85891 191 5], which from Sheppard’s description, it might have easily rivalled.  More of the description of this ‘shield’ can be had by emailing me at the address provided on the Homepage.   Sheppard then continues: “Near the edge of the shield, and a few inches above it, were two curved pieces of iron of doubtful use – possibly part of the chariot – as well as various other pieces of that metal.  Amongst the latter were two rivet-like pieces of iron (i.e. small bars with ‘heads’ at the ends) with the wood still adhering to the sides, evidently used in connection with the construction of the chariot.  These and many other evidences of the vehicle itself having been buried, are of importance, as according to some authorities a ‘chariot-burial’ sometimes means that only the wheels and horse-trappings were buried with the warrior.
As might be expected from the nature of the sub-soil, bones were very few indeed.  Immediately below the tyre of the wheel presently to be described, however were a fragment of bone ant parts of two teeth of a horse, in an advanced state of decay, but apparently good evidence of the animal having been buried with the chariot.
Perhaps one of the most interesting finds, however, was the iron tyre of the second wheel, the upper portion of which was found in position about a foot from the bottom of the grave.  It was soon found that the wheel had collapsed, the lower portion being flattened out on the bottom of the excavation.  The position of the iron demonstrated that the wheel, and presumably the chariot also, had been buried in its normal standing position, and that as the wood decayed the tyre gradually subsided under the weight of the earth above.  Had the wheels alone been buried, even in a standing position, the soil would gradually have taken the place of the decaying wood, and the tyre would have been found complete.  Between the two crushed portions of this iron rim were found the remains of the smaller ring of iron which surrounded the nave of the wheel.” 

Dr. Ian Stead, in 1979, wrote this concerning the upright burials of some vehicles “In contrast to this practise of burying a dismantled vehicle in a grave, is the rite observed at Pexton Moor, where the cart had been buried entire, the wheels in an upright position.  The circumstances of this discovery were not ideal: the barrow was opened in 1911, when one iron tyre was excavated (Kirk 1911), it was re-examined 24 years later when another tyre and further features were recorded, and another 24 years had to pass before the report was published (Stead 1959).  Unlike the burial discussed so far, on or adjoining the chalk Wolds, this one was on limestone hills, and its barrow was composed mainly of sand.  It was surrounded by a square plan barrow ditch and had been 17 feet (5.2m) across and, at the time of its first excavation, about 4 feet (1.2m) or 5 feet (1.5m) high.  There was no grave, but the cart-wheels had been buried in two shallow pits, some 10 inches (25cm) deep, orientated almost diagonally to the square plan ditch. No bones survived, and the only other find was a horse-bit, discovered some 5 feet (1.5m) in advance of one of the wheel-holes.
Only 8km from the Pexton Moor cart burial another had been found in the middle of the nineteenth century, at Cawthorn Camps.  Several features recall the Pexton Moor burial, and it seems likely that this cart, too, had been buried upright.”
[The Arras Culture, Ian Stead, the Yorkshire Philosophical Society, York, 1979 – chariot-burials, pp 20 – 28, ISBN 902 357 034]

This would verify Sheppard’s conclusion regarding the up-right situation of the vehicle-burial site at Hunmanby.  Sheppard continues:  “The bridle-bit of bronze¹ found in the first instance [see image] is very similar in type to the specimen from Arras, now in York Museum, which is figured and described by the Re. Edward William Stillingfleet [see above].  The Hunmanby bridle-bit, however, is rather larger, and is more delicate in design.  The two rings forming the bit are made of bronze, they are 2⅞ [two and seven eighths] inches in diameter, and the OO-shaped piece is 2½ inches in length.  Sheppard’s footnote here shows some glee at a subsequent publication – “¹ In Canon Greenwell’s paper on Early Iron Age Burials in Yorkshire, just issued (Archaeologia, vol. Lx., pp. 251 – 322), a postscript is added relating to the Hunmanby burial.  In this, referring to the bridle-bit, Canon Greenwell writes “It is stated to be made of bronze, but is, no doubt, like many others which have occurred elsewhere, of iron, bronze-coated.”  In this however, Canon Greenwell is mistaken.  The Hunmanby bridle-bit is broken in more than one place, and unquestionably is bronze to the core.”  One can understand Sheppard gloating at Greenwell’s erroneous assumption, and it was indeed necessary to correct it as soon as possible before the ‘record’ was changed to fit Greenwell, who was, at the time, a great authority on the subject.  Controversy amongst archaeologists, it seems, is NOT a new phenomenon.
[Note on A British Chariot-Burial at Hunmanby, in East Yorkshire, T. Sheppard, F.G.S. Curator of Municipal Museums, Hull: Hull Museums Publications No’s 37-48, Sept. 1907]

Of the Hunmanby site, Stead (1979) simply says, “The only other vehicle burial from which part of a grave group survives cannot clearly be assigned to either the dismantled Arras, or the intact Pexton Moor types.  It was found by chance at Hunmanby in 1907, and had been badly disturbed – half of it had slipped away in a fall from the edge of a quarry – but Sheppard was able to examine the site and excavate the surviving part of the grave.  His description (Sheppard (1907) is obscure in places, and he did not publish a plan of the remains.”  This seems to say, although I might well be in error, that Stead was unsure of the total reliability of Sheppard’s report.  He certainly appears to be chiding of Sheppard’s methodology.  It is not for me to comment either way.  What is more certain is that Dr. Stead is convinced that there were two distinct burial rites, those of the Arras and Wetwang type of the East Riding with dismantled chariots, and those of Pexton and Cawthorne Camps [see later] sites where the chariots were buried upright and intact.  Could this indicate a division of burial ritual?  Or is it more simply that were was no set prescription in the Iron Age for the burial of chariots, as none seem to be completely identical?  Did conditions such as local geology have a bearing?  To excavate a burial plot to inter an intact chariot in chalk bedrock of the Wolds would have required considerably more effort, but also, it is suggested that the upright burials were buried in sand rather than having a deeper grave.  This, I think still needs consideration.

Sheppard makes mention of a Mr. Mortimer, this is John Robert Mortimer, who for more than 40 years made it his life’s work to excavate the hundreds of tumuli that are/were clustered on the Wolds escarpment.  His seminal work “Forty Years Researches in British and Saxon Burial Mounds of East Yorkshire”, A. Brown & Sons, Ltd. London, Hull and York, 1905, with over 1,000 illustrations; is without doubt one of the most important works concerning the archaeological burials in the East Riding.  Sadly however, it is an extremely rare, and valuable work also (copies currently range in price between £150 and £200).  Any researcher must by whatever legal means, refer to it.  Would that it was, somehow, more readily available to the general public in these days of electronic and digital documentation and reproduction.  I was lucky enough to be provided brief access to a copy by Martin Foreman, at the Hull & East Riding Museum, High Street, Hull, to whom I am greatly indebted.  J.R. Mortimer (1825 – 1911) was by trade a corn merchant then archaeologist who lived at Driffield, East Yorkshire; he excavated hundreds of the barrows in his local area including Duggleby Howe.  His avid interest in the subject was then well known, and he trained local workmen to recognise items of archaeological interest, which, when they were brought to him, he would pay for.  In 1877, he bought some land in Driffield upon which he built at his own expense, a museum to house the results of his excavations.  Two years after his death the 66,000 items of his collection were bought by the Hull Corporation, and transferred to the Victoria Galleries, in the City Hall, in 1918.  From there, the collection finally found a permanent home at the Hull and East Riding Museum, High Street, Hull, where the collection remains.

Mortimer commences with the sorrowful admission that it was “Not until towards the close of my work amongst the barrows, viz., in 1897 had I the good fortune to find any remains of a British chariot, although ----- had been found on the Wolds.”   Prior to describing his own discovery however, Mortimer talks of a possible other, saying “On December 15^th, 1879, the guard of the North Eastern Railway ballast train informed me that he was present at the finding of the large shap granite boulder in the ballast pit at Seamer station ….. [between Filey and Scarborough] He also said he was present when the remains of what he called a small horse and cart were found in the pit, about the year 1862.  On being questioned, he stated that the horse and cart were found in a quantity of d…[word obscured] soily matter, which, as far as he could remember, filled the hole 4 to 5 feet in depth that had been dug into the clean gravely material forming the upper part of the pit.  He added that one of the workmen made his long smock-frock into a sack by tying up the neck, in which way he carried away the bones and bits of iron and afterwards sold them.  The hoops of the wheels were broken and much rusted and all the wood had disappeared.
“This appears to be a discovery worthy of being recorded, as it seems to have been nothing less than a British interment, consisting of the remains of a chariot, with the bones of the horse and probably those of the charioteer, which would not be recognised by the workmen.”
[Forty Years Researches in British and Saxon Burial Mounds of East Yorkshire”, J.R. Mortimer, A. Brown & Sons, Ltd. London, Hull and York, 1905, pp 358]

This raises a point or two.  First, it should be explained that in mid-Victorian times, as when this discovery made, the selling of old iron and bones was a means of furthering income by a few pennies, some will even remember the horse drawn carts wandering through the streets with their drivers calling “Any old iron – Rag bones.”  Second, that there was reported the skeleton of but a single horse.  It has to be remembered that the combustion engine had not been invented; most country people were familiar with horses, and presumably with their skeletal remains.  British chariots as has been demonstrated were drawn by two horses, but the skeleton of one only is mentioned in the guard’s story, although the passage of time might have clouded his otherwise seemingly excellent memory.  Mortimer himself seems uncertain about the veracity of the tale, but erring on the safe side, decided to include it so that others might make their own judgement, a wise move I think, for had he not done so, then a possible other chariot burial location could have been lost for all time.
Mortimer continues to describe briefly, a fifth discovery [the others have already been herein discussed] made by Canon Greenwell in a barrow on Westwood, Beverley, in 1875.  Saying only that it consisted of the hoops of two chariot wheels, about 3 feet in diameter, and what was almost certainly an iron bit, or bits.
[Ibid pp 359]

He next goes on to describe his own chariot discovery, almost in passing; “Still later, the remains of a chariot were found in No.13 of the ‘Danes’ Graves,’ which I excavated during the first fortnight in July 1897.  These [see diagram] consisted of the iron hoops of the wheels and naves, and rings of bronze and iron belonging to the chariot and his charioteer.”

Another early discovery was made at Dane’s Graves near Great Driffield, East Yorkshire.  In one of the almost 500* or so barrows that were in the area, of which only about 200 are now known to have survived, there were found the skeletons of two male individuals.  Also in the grave were the iron tyres of two wheels, two and a half feet in diameter, with, at their centres their respective nave rings.  Two iron linchpins and two bronze coated snaffle bits, and a further five metal rings and other objects were unearthed.  In yet another opened barrow at Dane’s Graves was the skeleton of a woman, lying on her left side with her left hand in front of her face, almost as if she were sleeping.  Behind her head were the remains of two pigs or boars, and a mirror, made of iron.  Remains in the form of snaffle bits and harness rings verified it as a chariot burial.
[The Archaeology of Yorkshire, F and H.W. Elgee, first by Methuen & Co. Ltd., 1933, this edition S.R. Publishers, 1971, pp 107-110, ISBN 0 85409 664 7]

* Mortimer provides the evidence for the numbers of tumuli at the Danes Graves site quoting from several earlier accounts including Leland, Dugdale, and Camden.  He also includes much from Canon Greenwell, whom he quotes thus: “They are found [the tumuli] in a hollow in the chalk hills of the Wolds, about four miles north of Driffield.  They are called the ‘Danes’ Graves’ and number nearly 200, lying close together in a wood.”  A footnote added by Mortimer says “Before the Wolds were enclosed a great many more existed; it is stated that there were, originally, as many as 500.”
[A Summary of What is Known of the So-called ‘Danes’ Graves’, near Driffield. By J. R. Mortimer, read October 7^th, 1897.  Proceedings of the Yorkshire Geological Society, vol. 13, 1895 – 1899]

Dr. Ian Stead has provided a more accessible dialogue of Mortimer’s excavation “The Danes Graves cart-burial (Mortimer 1897: 3-4; 1898: 121-4; Greenwell 1906: 276-8) was under a mound 27 feet (8.2m) in diameter and 3 feet (1m) high, in a grave 8½ feet (2.5m) by 7½ feet (2.3m) and 2½ feet (75cm) deep.  The main axis of the grave was north and south, in the western half were the remains of two wheels, flat on the floor; and in the eastern half were two skeletons.  The wheels were represented by iron tyres and iron nave hoops, and there were two linch-pins and various harness rings nearby.  Mortimer (1897:4) notes “a clear and distinct cavity, two inches (5cm) wide, in the soil filling the grave close above the wheels.  This cavity extended horizontally more than 4 feet (1.2m) in a curved direction, and was caused unquestionably by something which had gone to decay – probably the curved frame of one of the sides of the chariot”.  Of the skeletons, the more northerly was crouched, orientated south-west north-east, on its right side, and was accompanied by an iron and bronze brooch and some pig bones.  The second skeleton was also crouched, but orientated north-south, on its left side, and without surviving personal possessions. “
[The Arras Culture, Ian Stead, The Yorkshire Philosophical Society, York, 1979 – Chariot Burials, pp 20, ISBN 902 357 034]

Mortimer continues; “This appears to be the sixth instance of the discovery of remains of a British chariot in East Yorkshire.  References should be made to two more, though they are somewhat doubtful finds.
“At the commencement of my barrow digging one of the labourers (John Gilbank of Wetwang) told me that when a boy, he was engaged by Mr. Holtby, of Haywold, near Huggate, as a yearly servant, and that he remembered assisting to cart away some howes (barrows) and spread them on the land [shock – horror!].  In doing this the iron tyres of two small wheels and many bones were found in one of them, all of which were carted away with the soil.
“The other probable find was in 1888, during the construction of the Driffield and Market Weighton Railway, in a deep cutting in the chalk between Middleton and Enthorpe stations [neither of which are operational – nor indeed is this particular branch-line].  One of the navvies – a Driffield man – told me that on undermining the side of the cutting and letting down a mass of rock into the ballast waggon, a quantity of bones and rusted iron were observed, mixed with the stones and soil, which they tipped over the end of the embankment.  No further notice was taken of them, except that he put two or three pieces in his pocket.  He gave me the pin, or bolt [see image], but had lost the others.  It is 5½ inches long; the middle portion is iron, 3¼ inches long and half-an-inch square, to which are fixed two ends of solid bronze, one being in the form of a flattened ring.  Its greatest diameter is 1½ inches, and the hole through it is sufficiently large to admit the end of one’s little finger.  About half-an-inch below this aperture, but diagonally opposite to it, is a second perforation, nearly a quarter of an inch wide. ……. This article seems to be similar to two articles called ‘lynch-pins’ from the so-called ‘King’s Barrow’ at Arras ….. ”
[Forty Years Researches in British and Saxon Burial Mounds of East Yorkshire”, J.R. Mortimer, A. Brown & Sons, Ltd. London, Hull and York, 1905, pp 359-360]

While Mortimer is clearly uncertain about these two reports, he still, and rightly, includes them.  It may be that there were such finds, but without any other evidence but the so-called ‘lynch-pin’ to support them, they have to be considered as apocryphal. 

“More than twenty years prior to Mortimer’s chariot-burial discovery at Danes’ Graves, Greenwell had excavated one at Beverley, in 1875, under a barrow 21 feet (6.5m) diameter and 2 feet (60cm) high (Greenwell 1877: 456; 1906: 278).  The grave was orientated north-south and measured 6¼ feet (1.9m) long by 4½ feet (1.4m) wide, and 2¾ feet (84cm) deep.  Soil conditions had destroyed any trace of bone and the only finds were objects of iron in poor condition.  ‘About the middle of the grave, towards the east side, were the tyres of two wheels, laid flat, side by side, each having within it a ring, the hops (sic) of the respective naves…. on the west side of the grave were two snaffle-bits.’ (Greenwell 1906: 278)”
[The Arras Culture, Ian Stead, The Yorkshire Philosophical Society, York, 1979 – Chariot Burials, pp 20, ISBN 902 357 034]

Mortimer (361) also describes the discovery made by Thomas Kendal, of Pickering, in the North Riding, about the year 1849, when the remains of a chariot were found in a barrow close to the Roman period Cawthorne Camps site, just north of Pickering.  He says: “I well remember Mr. Kendal naming this find to me many years ago, and he much regretted that he was not able to sketch, so as to give the shape and position of the chariot.  He described the mound as being mainly composed of light coloured sand, and said that the position, and in the main, the form of the chariot was clearly visible.  The tyres of the wheels were well preserved, whilst the pole (which had measured about 7 feet) and other woodwork was shown by dark lines of decayed wood, clearly defined in the light coloured sand.  It is much to be regretted that so good an opportunity of obtaining a restoration of the chariot was lost.”
[Forty Years Researches in British and Saxon Burial Mounds of East Yorkshire”, J.R. Mortimer, A. Brown & Sons, Ltd. London, Hull and York, 1905, pp 361]

In furtherance to this, Stead (1979: 22) says of this find: “Only 8km from the Pexton Moor cart burial another had been found in the middle of the nineteenth century, at Cawthorne Camps.  Several features recall the Pexton Moor burial, and it seems likely that this cart too, had been buried upright.”  Stead acquired this, again from Mortimer, who, continuing his narrative about this burial says: “On April 2^nd, 1894, I interviewed Mr. Thomas Dowson, of Pickering, who was Kendal’s foreman in all his barrow digging.  Though he was about seventy-eight years of age he retained a vivid recollection of the barrow openings at which he had assisted.  He fully confirmed what Kendal had told me about the chariot, and added that the mound is situated very near the south-eastern corner of the most easterly of the three Cawthorne Camps, [see Roman Fortifications www.yorkshirehistory.com] – and that at the time its height would be a little over three feet.  One of the chariot wheels was pressed down nearly flat, and the decayed wood of the spokes, which numbered only four, was shown very clearly.  The other wheel stood upright, and nearly reached the top of the barrow.  the diameter of these wheels, judging from the tyre now preserved, was about 3 feet; and from preserved portions of the tyre of the naves they seem to have been hoped with iron plated with bronze.  Mr. Dowson said the pole reached eastwards about 7 feet from the body of the chariot, and at the terminal end were decayed hooks and rings of iron and brass (bronze).”
[Ibid]  

This concludes the first section, comprised as it is of the early discoveries of chariot-burials.  There then followed a hiatus of several decades before another was revealed, and with advancing techniques in archaeology, aerial photography, crop marks, geophysical surveying, and the like, the archaeological wealth of these subsequent burials has become much more appreciated, and dare one say – exciting.

Richard Hayton

Please click here to move on to Section Two