A range of enigmatic linear earthwork monuments were constructed during the fourth millennium BC. The best know and most numerous of these are the cursuses (Harding and Barclay 1999). At least one of these monuments was built at Thornborough. Cursuses generally consist of an elongated or rectilinear banked and ditched enclosure between 20-128 metres wide and 170-10,000 metres long. Their ends are usually closed with either squared or convex terminals. Long mortuary enclosures, a category which includes the Oval Enclosure at Thornborough, are a related tradition, although smaller at less that 150 metres long and 25 metres wide. These ditch and internal enclosures are usually ovate or trapezoidal in shape and often regarded as ploughed flat long barrows.
No trace of either cursus monument or the Oval Enclosure
exists above ground, presumably as a result of levelling by ploughing.
The present Stewardship Agreement will protect the length of the Cursus,
as long as it is kept out of cultivation, and fortunately, the Oval
Enclosure does not currently suffer from deep ploughing or sub-soiling.
On the other hand, it is highly regrettable that quarrying destroyed
the western end of the Central Cursus. Past excavations of both these
sites have demonstrated the potential for significant below ground archaeological
deposits. This is particularly the case at the Central Henge, where
uniquely in the British Isles, a cursus ditch, and presumably a contemporary
old land surface, are known to be sealed and protected by a subsequent
earthwork. The potential importance of these deposits can not be over-stated.
It is supposed, rather than demonstrated, that both the Cursus and the
Oval Enclosure date to the fourth millennium BC. Significant questions
also remain with both site’s original structural appearance. The
potential for further dating evidence is, in all likelihood, low, but
the remaining deposits may shed light on other key questions. Further
excavation could confirm whether the Oval Enclosure was indeed an open
long mortuary enclosure or a plough-razed long barrow — earlier
excavations demonstrated an inner bank — and the role or purpose
of enclosed features discovered in the evaluation trenches (including
whether they contained human bone). There are also significant limitations
as to what is known about the Cursus. Most notably, whether the site
continues under the village of Thornborough, and whether its eastern
end was open (as it appears on aerial photographs). Importance should
also be attached to ascertaining its chronological relationship with
the Central Henge, and with which of the two sites the features discovered
by excavation in 1998 were associated. Any link with the cursus would
represent a significant development in our general appreciation of these
monuments.
The exact nature of the cropmark adjacent to the Northern Henge is presently
undetermined. However, the aerial photographs suggest the possibility
of it being a cursus. The terminals of other known cursuses are usually
square, or slightly rounded at the corners, unlike the broad curve of
the Central Cursus terminal. The Possible Cursus therefore fits within
the known morphology of these monuments, although only a short length
is known from aerial photography (and its absence in aerial photographs
to the south of the road certainly suggests it is not long enough to
be a cursus). The possible presence of a ring ditch near to its suggested
terminal is also in keeping with the evidence discussed above. Small
scale excavation across the proposed alignment of the Possible Cursus
would be highly informative. Any indication that it was in fact an early
Neolithic monument would significantly alter our interpretation of Thornborough.
It would suggest that the monument complex was larger and more complex
during the fourth millennium BC than previously assumed.
