Ancient Monuments

History on the Ground

This site is entirely user-supported. See how you can help.

Thirkleby medieval settlement adjacent to Thirkleby Manor

A Scheduled Monument in Kirby Grindalythe, North Yorkshire

Approximate Location Map
Large Map »
Street or Overhead View
Contributor Photos »

If Google Street View is available, the image is from the best available vantage point looking, if possible, towards the location of the monument. Where it is not available, the satellite view is shown instead.


Latitude: 54.105 / 54°6'17"N

Longitude: -0.5944 / 0°35'39"W

OS Eastings: 492001.770844

OS Northings: 468587.35822

OS Grid: SE920685

Mapcode National: GBR SN9Z.37

Mapcode Global: WHGCW.V24X

Entry Name: Thirkleby medieval settlement adjacent to Thirkleby Manor

Scheduled Date: 7 July 2000

Source: Historic England

Source ID: 1019094

English Heritage Legacy ID: 32666

County: North Yorkshire

Civil Parish: Kirby Grindalythe

Traditional County: Yorkshire

Lieutenancy Area (Ceremonial County): North Yorkshire

Church of England Parish: Kirby Grindalythe St Andrew

Church of England Diocese: York


The monument includes the buried and earthwork remains of the medieval
settlement of Thirkleby, including the remains of a chapel, located to the
south of Thirkleby Manor.
The Domesday Book of 1087 notes that Thirkleby was divided between two manors.
The largest portion was held by Eadgifu before the Norman Conquest. She was
the sister of two prominent earls, Edwin and Morcar, and married King Harold
in 1066. Eadgifu's manor was described as being two leagues long and one wide
with land for four plough teams, valued at 30 shillings. By 1087 this manor
was held by Ralph of Mortemer and was described as waste. The smaller portion
of Thirkleby, enough for two plough teams, was held by Ketilbjorn who also
held parts of Kirby Grindalythe and Low Mowthorpe. This passed to Count Robert
Mortain, William I's half brother and second largest post-Conquest land
holder. By 1274-5 William de Preston was recorded as holding land in Thirkleby
and Agnes de Preston in 1293-4. Six people, headed by Agnes de Preston, were
taxed for the 1297 Lay Subsidy, a tax which did not include people with less
than nine shillings in assets. By comparison, in neighbouring Kirkby
Grindalythe only four people were taxed. The settlement was assessed for 30
shillings for the 1334 Lay Subsidy, against Kirby Grindalythe's 38 shillings,
but granted 40% relief following the Black Death later in the middle part of
the century. In 1517 part of the settlement's medieval open fields were
enclosed, implying that the settlement was being depopulated at this time. The
existing manor house and associated farmyard, which all lie outside the
boundary of the monument, date from the late 18th century.
Running along and just inside the south east side of the monument there is a
medieval lane preserved as a bridleway which continues south west to Kirby
Grindalythe and to the north east to West Lutton. This is considered to have
formed the main street of the medieval settlement. Within the area of the
monument two hollow ways run downhill from the lane to the valley bottom and
the Gypsey Race. One remains in use as a trackway marked on the 1:10,000 map
and the other is an earthwork feature lying 40m to the south west. Running
parallel with these hollow ways are a succession of boundaries marked by low
banks or breaks of slope, dividing the hillside into a series of strips
extending between the lane and the stream. These strips are identified as
tofts and associated crofts, a toft being the plot for a house, outbuildings
and yards with the a croft being a small enclosure for horticulture or
livestock, each strip originally being a separate medieval tenement.
The area to the north east of the hollow way still used as a track, is divided
into two terraces. This area is recorded as Chapel Garth on 19th century maps.
The upper terrace is 50m-60m wide and is about 1.5m above the lower terrace
which is 15m-20m wide and stands 2m above the valley bottom. This area is also
divided into two approximately equal areas about 40m wide by a bank up to 5m
wide and 0.5m high parallel with the hollow way. To the north east of this
bank on the top terrace there are the footings of a small rectangular building
with a rounded east end. This is identified as the remains of a manorial
chapel with a yard defined by further banks on its south and east side. This
yard is separated from the lane by a narrow plot 8m wide which includes a low
platform identified as the remains of another building. The south western half
of the upper terrace is identified as a toft, with another building platform
sited next to the lane in its southern corner. The area between the two hollow
ways is divided into three terraces and is interpreted as a single tenement
around 40m wide, with the top terrace, which is further defined by a low bank,
forming a toft. The tenements to the south west of the hollow way are
narrower, generally 25m to 30m wide. The first four have tofts adjacent to
the medieval lane with crofts extending beyond a sharp break of slope down the
hillside to the stream. The first is around 30m wide with a toft, including a
building platform, extending about 10m from the lane. The next three tenements
are each about 25m wide and their tofts show evidence of having been
amalgamated. The tofts form a distinctive terrace along the edge of which are
the footings of three buildings. The central structure is 9m in diameter and
is flanked by the remains of two rectangular buildings. To the south east, the
plots appear to be simple crofts extending between the lane and the stream.
The area of the monument on the north western side of the Gypsey Race forms
part of the valley floor. This is also divided into strips by low banks
running north west to south east. Towards the south western end of the area
there are the earthwork remains of a complex of buildings measuring 30m by 25m
overall, arranged around a central courtyard 13m square. This is identified as
a small courtyard farmstead which elsewhere on the Wolds has been shown by
excavation to typically date to around the 15th century. Courtyard farmsteads
are thought to indicate a different farming regime to that practised from the
typically earlier medieval longhouse based farmstead.
A number of features are excluded from the scheduling; these are the stable
block, all modern fences and walls, all stiles and gates, water troughs and
the platforms that they stand on, telegraph poles and all road and path
surfaces; however, the ground beneath these features is included.

The site of the monument is shown on the attached map extract.

Source: Historic England

Reasons for Scheduling

Medieval rural settlements in England were marked by great regional diversity
in form, size and type, and the protection of their archaeological remains
needs to take these differences into account. To do this, England has been
divided into three broad Provinces on the basis of each area's distinctive
mixture of nucleated and dispersed settlements. These can be further divided
into sub-Provinces and local regions, possessing characteristics which have
gradually evolved during the last 1500 years or more.
The Yorkshire Wolds local region is a soft, rolling, chalk landscape with deep
valleys. Dispersed farmsteads, usually impressive creations of the late 18th
and 19th centuries, are present in small numbers. The earlier pattern of
medieval nucleated settlements - villages and hamlets - still dominates the
archaeological landscape as either deserted settlement sites or sites still
occupied by rural communities.

Medieval villages were organised agricultural communities, generally sited at
the centre of a parish or township, that shared resources such as arable land,
meadow and woodland. Village plans varied enormously, but where they survive
as earthworks, their most distinguishing features include roads and minor
tracks, platforms on which stood houses and other buildings such as barns,
enclosed crofts and paddocks. They frequently included the parish church
within their boundaries, and as part of the manorial system, most villages
included one or more manorial centres which may also survive as visible
remains as well as below ground deposits. In the Central Province of England,
villages were the most distinctive aspect of medieval life, and their
archaeological remains are one of the most important sources of understanding
about rural life in the five or more centuries following the Norman Conquest.
Around 4000 parochial chapels were built between the 12th and 17th centuries
as subsidiary places of worship for the convenience of parishioners who lived
at a distance from the main parish church or as private places of worship for
the manorial lord. Some chapels possess burial grounds. Unlike parish
churches, the majority of which remain in ecclesiastical use, chapels were
often abandoned as their communities and supporting finances declined. The
sites of abandoned chapels are particularly worthy of statutory protection as
they were often left largely undisturbed and thus retain important information
about the nature and date of their use until their abandonment.
The remains of the medieval settlement of Thirkleby are well preserved and
include a wide range of features, including the courtyard farmstead and the
chapel. The village settlement was occupied over several hundred years and
demonstrates changing agricultural practise over time, for example, with the
development of the courtyard farm around the 15th century. This probably
indicates an increased emphasis on stockbreeding at this time. The monument's
importance is heightened by its group value with other surviving settlement
remains further up the valley at Kirby Grindalythe and to the east of
Along with the upstanding earthworks, the monument will also retain buried
medieval remains such as rubbish pits, post holes and scatters of material
which will not necessarily show as upstanding earthworks, but will retain a
wealth of archaeological information.

Source: Historic England


Books and journals
Beresford, M W , 'Yorkshire Archaeological Journal' in Lost Villages of Yorkshire, , Vol. 38, (1952), 64

Source: Historic England

Other nearby scheduled monuments is an independent online resource and is not associated with any government department. All government data published here is used under licence. Please do not contact for any queries related to any individual ancient or schedued monument, planning permission related to scheduled monuments or the scheduling process itself. is a Good Stuff website.