Mikefule
Justified & Ancient
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 1,282
- Location
- Lincolnshire UK
A quick forum search for Stonehenge produces 20 pages of results. A similar search for Grimspound produces only 8 results, 3 of which are passing references in the Stonehenge thread! The other 5 are in the Creepy Small Villages thread.
This shocked me as Grimspound is every bit as impressive as Stonehenge, and at least as mysterious. There can be no doubt that Stonehenge had a primarily ritual function; Grimspound is more of an enigma: it was clearly a settlement, but why was it built in that particular location in such an extraordinary style?
A bit of background first
Dartmoor is an area of beautiful moorland in the west of England. It boasts the largest concentration of bronze age remains in the UK, as well as traces of neolithic occupation. Impressive prehistoric features include:
With all this prehistory on Dartmoor, it is surprising that there is so little discussion of it in this forum. At the time of writing, Upper Erme gets 0 matches for a forum search, Merrivale 1, and Yellowmead 0.
But Grimspound is the one I'm interested in. I have visited it many times. It is a spectacular monument in a wild and lovely place — and one that has never made sense to me.
Grimspound: the outer wall showing its location on the slope of Hameldown Tor
The Basics
Grimspound is the remains of a bronze age settlement, built on a slope and closely overlooked by two nearby hills. The site is believed to have been occupied from around 1,300 BC, and the stone perimeter wall was built around 1,000 BC.
The site was excavated in 1893 and some attempt was made to "restore" it. This inevitably destroyed evidence that would have been interesting to archaeologists working to modern standards. Various bits of pottery were found, but nothing organic had survived in the acidic moorland soil. Interestingly, the excavation found no quern stones, implying that flour had to be traded into the settlement.
There is evidence of 24 hut circles within the stone walled perimeter. Each hut circle is an interesting little monument in its own right, and it is possible to make out the porch, the door posts, and other internal features. It's not on a par with Skara Brae in Orkney but there is enough still standing that you can readily imagine how the huts might have been used. A plan of Grimspound drafted in 1855 shows more hut circles outside the perimeter.
One of the better-preserved (partly reconstructed) hut circles.
The name "Grimspound" was first recorded by the Reverend Richard Polwhele in 1797 and may have been his own invention: "pound" is simply an enclosed area, and "Grim" is variously interpreted as referring to Odin/Woden, or to the Devil — probably the latter, given Polwhele's profession.
Rev. Polwhele speculated that Grimspound was "the seat of the judicature" and/or "one of the principal temples of the druids. The first of these is a clear attempt to apply modern concepts to an ancient society, and the latter is just one more example of the "druids" being used as a catch-all term for prehistoric religious leaders in Britain.
Four extremely unusual things about Grimspound are:
The stone perimeter wall was built on a massive scale, and must have been an enormous investment of resources for a bronze age community. Why build a stone wall that substantial, and yet "only" that high?
The ruined wall.
The obvious reason to build a substantial stone wall would be for defence, but then, why build your stronghold in such a position that an enemy can observe you — and shower weapons down on you —from above? There is a reason why there were "hill forts" and "peninsula forts".
It is of course possible that they needed to build the settlement low down, possibly for easy access to water. However, you would then expect any defensive walls to be tall rather than thick: this was time when warfare was likely to be a series of raids and sudden attacks rather than extended sieges, and they did not have mediaeval-style siege engines.
One suggestion that is often repeated is that the wall was to keep livestock in, and predators out. I find this unconvincing. Upland farmers all over Britain have successfully kept livestock in with drystone walls only about half a metre thick (20 inches) and typically around the height of a small adult. Predators at that time may have included wolves, foxes, and possibly bears, but none of these would find a narrow wall less of a challenge than a very thick one. It just makes no sense to build such a huge wall for this purpose.
Of course, we do not know if the wall originally had a timber pallisade on top of it. That would give it greater protection from a human enemy, and perhaps the wide top of the wall could have been used as a fighting platform by the defenders. But then, if we go back to the explanation that Grimspound was built as a serious defensive work, why choose such an inappropriate position? More importantly, why put the main gate facing up the hill? However strongly you build a gate, it is always a weak point in your defences. Why not put it facing downhill, to make it easier to defend?
The stone gateway which faces up the slope towards Hameldown Tor
This issues of the site of the settlement, and of the position of the main gate, are clouded somewhat by two factors. The first is that we do not know whether the present small stream (known as the Grimslake) that runs through the lower part of the settlement was a reliable source of water at the time that the site was occupied — although it seems likely. The second is that the gate itself may have been part of the rebuilding in Victorian times.
One source I have read suggests that the gateway was not mentioned in some of the earliest written descriptions of the site. However, it is such an impressive gateway, including some extremely large stones that I think it is likely to have been part of the original design.
Of course, some "strongholds" are more for show than actual conflict. Ancient warfare was an ever present threat, but not an ever present reality. Did they build Grimspound in a sheltered position because for the majority of the time, shelter from the weather was more important than defence —but then build it strong because the sheltered position was vulnerable? This is possible, but evidence of other ancient fortifications suggests that they usually put the defences in an easily defensible position: on top of a hill. I suspect that people with conventional hill forts spent peace time living comfortably down in the valley, confident that they could retreat to the stronghold when necessary. Why does Grimspound not follow this pattern?
It is entirely conceivable that the settlement had the massive wall and gateway purely as symbols of prestige. That does not change the fact that any imposing structure is more impressive seen from below rather than above. A gateway on the downhill side of the enclosure would need to be approached uphill, reinforcing the sense that you were about to enter an important place.
The absence of similarly massive-walled enclosures locally implies that Grimspound was important regionally and it may well have been the seat of a powerful leader. The 24 hut circles inside are in various designs, suggesting that they may not have been built at the same time. Some of them show clear signs of being designed for human occupation but others appear to have been for storage or livestock. How powerful would a leader be whose immediate "inner circle" numbered fewer than 24 small households, and possibly only a dozen or so men of fighting age? Were they an elite force, similar to the "huscarls" of the later Saxon era?
We can be confident that Grimspound was definitely a settlement with probably a dozen or so families within its walls, and maybe as many again on the outside. We know that livestock was kept there, and that they must have traded with other communities to get flour. There is nothing about Grimspound that suggests that it had a primarily ritual function: the space inside the ring was scattered with dwellings and other buildings. Although there are countless stone rows and circles on the moor, there is no obvious association between Grimspound and any particular one.
The resources readily available to the inhabitants included their livestock, peat, game, and tin and copper ores. No evidence has been found of smelting on the site. Ore is not an easy substance for an enemy to plunder. Livestock could be protected more easily than with this massive wall.
So the questions that have struck me on every one of my visits to this unique site are: why it was built in the valley rather than on the hill, why the wall was so massive, and particularly why it was so thick, and why the massive gateway was built facing up the slope. What was it about this small rural community that led to such an extraordinary investment of time and effort to build that wall and gateway?
A small cross — presumably Christian — carved into one of the stones.
Remains of the gateway, with person for scale.
A plan of the monument.
Edits I had misread "Upper Erne" rather than "Erme". The 4 matches on forum searches were to a different place in Ireland. I have been to Grimspound many times, but not to Upper Erme.
This shocked me as Grimspound is every bit as impressive as Stonehenge, and at least as mysterious. There can be no doubt that Stonehenge had a primarily ritual function; Grimspound is more of an enigma: it was clearly a settlement, but why was it built in that particular location in such an extraordinary style?
A bit of background first
Dartmoor is an area of beautiful moorland in the west of England. It boasts the largest concentration of bronze age remains in the UK, as well as traces of neolithic occupation. Impressive prehistoric features include:
- Upper Erme Stone Row: at 3,300 metres long (10,080 feet) this is the longest stone row in the world. For comparison, Ben Nevis is only 1,345 metres high (4,413 feet).
- Merrivale: a double stone row, 182 metres long (597 feet).
- Yellowmead Down: a quadruple concentric stone circle with associated stone rows.
With all this prehistory on Dartmoor, it is surprising that there is so little discussion of it in this forum. At the time of writing, Upper Erme gets 0 matches for a forum search, Merrivale 1, and Yellowmead 0.
But Grimspound is the one I'm interested in. I have visited it many times. It is a spectacular monument in a wild and lovely place — and one that has never made sense to me.
Grimspound: the outer wall showing its location on the slope of Hameldown Tor
The Basics
Grimspound is the remains of a bronze age settlement, built on a slope and closely overlooked by two nearby hills. The site is believed to have been occupied from around 1,300 BC, and the stone perimeter wall was built around 1,000 BC.
The site was excavated in 1893 and some attempt was made to "restore" it. This inevitably destroyed evidence that would have been interesting to archaeologists working to modern standards. Various bits of pottery were found, but nothing organic had survived in the acidic moorland soil. Interestingly, the excavation found no quern stones, implying that flour had to be traded into the settlement.
There is evidence of 24 hut circles within the stone walled perimeter. Each hut circle is an interesting little monument in its own right, and it is possible to make out the porch, the door posts, and other internal features. It's not on a par with Skara Brae in Orkney but there is enough still standing that you can readily imagine how the huts might have been used. A plan of Grimspound drafted in 1855 shows more hut circles outside the perimeter.
One of the better-preserved (partly reconstructed) hut circles.
The name "Grimspound" was first recorded by the Reverend Richard Polwhele in 1797 and may have been his own invention: "pound" is simply an enclosed area, and "Grim" is variously interpreted as referring to Odin/Woden, or to the Devil — probably the latter, given Polwhele's profession.
Rev. Polwhele speculated that Grimspound was "the seat of the judicature" and/or "one of the principal temples of the druids. The first of these is a clear attempt to apply modern concepts to an ancient society, and the latter is just one more example of the "druids" being used as a catch-all term for prehistoric religious leaders in Britain.
Four extremely unusual things about Grimspound are:
- The stone perimeter wall. The ruins are approximately 4.5 metres wide (15 feet) and it is estimated to have been around 1.5 metres high (5 ft). The wall encloses an area roughly 156 metres x 133 metres (510 feet x 435 feet).
- The massive stone entrance, which points up hill towards Hameldown Tor.
- The location, in the valley between two hills, Hameldown Tor and Hookney Tor.
- The absence of similar settlements with such substantial walls. As far as I know, it is unique, at least in the region.
The stone perimeter wall was built on a massive scale, and must have been an enormous investment of resources for a bronze age community. Why build a stone wall that substantial, and yet "only" that high?
The ruined wall.
The obvious reason to build a substantial stone wall would be for defence, but then, why build your stronghold in such a position that an enemy can observe you — and shower weapons down on you —from above? There is a reason why there were "hill forts" and "peninsula forts".
It is of course possible that they needed to build the settlement low down, possibly for easy access to water. However, you would then expect any defensive walls to be tall rather than thick: this was time when warfare was likely to be a series of raids and sudden attacks rather than extended sieges, and they did not have mediaeval-style siege engines.
One suggestion that is often repeated is that the wall was to keep livestock in, and predators out. I find this unconvincing. Upland farmers all over Britain have successfully kept livestock in with drystone walls only about half a metre thick (20 inches) and typically around the height of a small adult. Predators at that time may have included wolves, foxes, and possibly bears, but none of these would find a narrow wall less of a challenge than a very thick one. It just makes no sense to build such a huge wall for this purpose.
Of course, we do not know if the wall originally had a timber pallisade on top of it. That would give it greater protection from a human enemy, and perhaps the wide top of the wall could have been used as a fighting platform by the defenders. But then, if we go back to the explanation that Grimspound was built as a serious defensive work, why choose such an inappropriate position? More importantly, why put the main gate facing up the hill? However strongly you build a gate, it is always a weak point in your defences. Why not put it facing downhill, to make it easier to defend?
The stone gateway which faces up the slope towards Hameldown Tor
This issues of the site of the settlement, and of the position of the main gate, are clouded somewhat by two factors. The first is that we do not know whether the present small stream (known as the Grimslake) that runs through the lower part of the settlement was a reliable source of water at the time that the site was occupied — although it seems likely. The second is that the gate itself may have been part of the rebuilding in Victorian times.
One source I have read suggests that the gateway was not mentioned in some of the earliest written descriptions of the site. However, it is such an impressive gateway, including some extremely large stones that I think it is likely to have been part of the original design.
Of course, some "strongholds" are more for show than actual conflict. Ancient warfare was an ever present threat, but not an ever present reality. Did they build Grimspound in a sheltered position because for the majority of the time, shelter from the weather was more important than defence —but then build it strong because the sheltered position was vulnerable? This is possible, but evidence of other ancient fortifications suggests that they usually put the defences in an easily defensible position: on top of a hill. I suspect that people with conventional hill forts spent peace time living comfortably down in the valley, confident that they could retreat to the stronghold when necessary. Why does Grimspound not follow this pattern?
It is entirely conceivable that the settlement had the massive wall and gateway purely as symbols of prestige. That does not change the fact that any imposing structure is more impressive seen from below rather than above. A gateway on the downhill side of the enclosure would need to be approached uphill, reinforcing the sense that you were about to enter an important place.
The absence of similarly massive-walled enclosures locally implies that Grimspound was important regionally and it may well have been the seat of a powerful leader. The 24 hut circles inside are in various designs, suggesting that they may not have been built at the same time. Some of them show clear signs of being designed for human occupation but others appear to have been for storage or livestock. How powerful would a leader be whose immediate "inner circle" numbered fewer than 24 small households, and possibly only a dozen or so men of fighting age? Were they an elite force, similar to the "huscarls" of the later Saxon era?
We can be confident that Grimspound was definitely a settlement with probably a dozen or so families within its walls, and maybe as many again on the outside. We know that livestock was kept there, and that they must have traded with other communities to get flour. There is nothing about Grimspound that suggests that it had a primarily ritual function: the space inside the ring was scattered with dwellings and other buildings. Although there are countless stone rows and circles on the moor, there is no obvious association between Grimspound and any particular one.
The resources readily available to the inhabitants included their livestock, peat, game, and tin and copper ores. No evidence has been found of smelting on the site. Ore is not an easy substance for an enemy to plunder. Livestock could be protected more easily than with this massive wall.
So the questions that have struck me on every one of my visits to this unique site are: why it was built in the valley rather than on the hill, why the wall was so massive, and particularly why it was so thick, and why the massive gateway was built facing up the slope. What was it about this small rural community that led to such an extraordinary investment of time and effort to build that wall and gateway?
A small cross — presumably Christian — carved into one of the stones.
Remains of the gateway, with person for scale.
A plan of the monument.
Edits I had misread "Upper Erne" rather than "Erme". The 4 matches on forum searches were to a different place in Ireland. I have been to Grimspound many times, but not to Upper Erme.
Last edited:
) I would normally get down there 3 or 4 times a year.