Monument record 1762/1/1 - Alleged Group of Barrows to the South-East of Carden Hall

<1> Ormerod, G., 1882, The History of the County Palatine and City of Chester, Vol 2, p.320 (Book). SCH1389.

Omerod describes: 'in and near Carden are several smaller tumuli, one of which is in a field south-east of the hall, where some Roman urns were discovered a few years ago'.

<2> Thompson Watkin W. T., 1886, Roman Cheshire: A Description of Roman Remains in the County of Chester, p.316 (Book). SCH2878.

Watkin also writes of a group of tumuli in a field to the south-east of Carden, in one of which urns (allegedly Roman) were found.

<3> Shone W, 1911, Prehistoric Man in Cheshire, p.70 (Book). SCH2710.

Shone describes five tumuli, nearly equidistant, which stretch along the banks of a small stream for about a quarter of a mile, Carden hall standing between the second and third, the fifth being unusually large in its dimensions.

<4> Longley D, 1977-1978, Longley Archive, Site no.68 (Paper Archive). SCH2005.

The record card for the barrows in the Longley archive records that a visit by an Ordnance Survey field investigator in 1964 to the site of the barrows identified them as natural. The card also records that in 1973 Tom Clare identified two mounds on the gentle back of the ridge at SJ 4635 5455 - the small mound is mostly solid rock, the northern is partly sand. Also, adjacent mounds are almost certainly natural and have been quarried.

<5> Ordnance Survey, 1870-1982, Ordnance Survey Archaeological Record Card, SJ45SE3 1976 (Index). SCH2487.

An Ordnance Survey field investigator (initials DJC) visited the site of the barrows on 17/03/76, he made the following observation: 'These barrows could not be identified. The nearest stream is 600.0m west of the site of Carden Hall. Nothing resembling a barrow can now be seen in the field SE of Carden Hall'.

<6> Harris, B.E. (ed), 1987, Victoria County History - A History of the County of Chester: Volume I, 1/86 Longley D 1987 (Book). SCH3556.

<7> Varley, W. J. & Jackson, J. W., 1940, Prehistoric Cheshire, Schedule V, Site 41 (Book). SCH2692.

Barrow listed at Carden with Watkin (source 2) as a reference.

<8> Matthews K J, Quinney P S, Sinclair A G M, 1998, The Carden Park Project: A multi-period landscape in western Cheshire (Unpublished Document). SCH8456.

An archaeological project was undertaken in the 1990s at Carden Hall and Park, prior to re-development of the site. The project was run jointly between the University of Liverpool's School of Archaeology, Classics and Oriental Studies, and Chester Archaeology and formed part of a larger research project, the Three Rivers Project, aimed at examining the earlier prehistory of the Dee, Clwyd and upper Severn valleys. Results of desk-based research forming part of this project made the following observation for the alleged barrows at Carden:-

'The only real information about it (the barrow cemetery) comes from a brief description given by the Cheshire historian George Ormerod, writing shortly before 1819. He describes “the enormous tumulus of Coddington, and to the left of it, in and near Carden are several smaller tumuli, one of which is in a field south-east of the hall, where some Roman urns were discovered a few years ago.” The description of the urns as Roman is unsurprising: in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries many prehistoric artefacts were believed to have been Roman in date. It must be assumed that the barrow southeast of the Hall is that which still exists… (see CHER 1762/1/2)

William Shone Jr, the local antiquary, unfortunately muddled Ormerod’s account with a barrow cemetery at Jodrell Bank in Twemlow. This has misled …(those)... who have been looking for five mounds close to the brook beside Stretton Mill. The explanation for this error is probably to be sought in Shone’s preparatory notes: in his book he describes Egerton Leigh as the owner of Carden Hall, whereas the Egerton Leighs were owners of Jodrell Hall, where the barrow cemetery described by Shone still exists. The owner of Carden was actually John Hurleston Leche. Presumably, Leigh and Leche became muddled in his notes, causing the present confusion.'

In 1997, work undertaken as part of this research project, included geophysical survey of the one true barrow of the group (CHER 1762/1/2), two 'hot spots' were recorded and interpreted as probable burials.