Talk:Leith Hill

Untitled

"Mr Eveleyn of nearby Wotten Hall" should this be "Mr Evelyn of nearby Wotton Hall. There were famous Evelyns in the nearby village of Wotton. Stamford spiney 12:32, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Climbing to Leith Hill Tower 27th October 2006

The tower was a sight to behold, especally after that long climb. Hidden by the trees at first, it slowly emerged into view and I could see I was at the top of the hill.

The time was about 4:30pm, and the tower closed at 5pm. ut after getting all this way, I wasn't going to just leave, so I bought a ticket and made my way up the tower along a very narrow and dark stone staircase. Along all the walls countless carvings and scraches had been made in the stonework, each reveling a past visistor to the hill. The oldest one I could find was from 1969, although I dare say there are much older ones there. And yes, the temptation was too great to resist and I added my own, SHADOW, to the collection, inspired by a carving I had seen at Box Hill that read: "DRAGON, 10 V 56".

Half way up the tower I came to a two small rooms. It was basically an information centre, with leaflets and poasters about Leith Hill, the tower and the national trust. The most entertaining things in this room included and light up map of the area and a talking notice board.

Moving on and upwards, it was another dark set of stairs before I reached the top, and emerging from a tiny wooden doorway I steped out onto a landing surrounded by views in every direction. A telescope sat in the far right corner and after wasting 20p on a thirty second use of it, I stopped and just admired the views. It was lovely up their, with a light cold October breeze and the orange sun settting behind a blanket of thick grey colud streaching accross the horision. I could really imagian myselfe living somewhere like this in simpler times. But like all things this dream had to end, and it wasn't long before it was closing time at the tower. As I was the last and only person still up there, I was given the honor, after having a chat with the national trust volonteeire on the ground from the top of tower, to close up and lock all the doors as I made my way down. Think outside the box 14:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Height

The height was given as 294m/965ft in the infobox and 295m/968ft in the main article. I have corrected the latter, as 294m is correct according to the OS maps. (NB the older, imperial maps also back this up, giving the height as 965ft). 143.252.80.100 13:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Geographical Error

This article indicates Leith Hill as being he highest point on the North Downs. The North Downs are the range of chalk hills running just north of Guildford, Dorking and Reigate. Leith Hill is sandstone and is part of the Greendsand Ridge which runs parallel to the North Downs some distance south of these towns.

86.133.186.159 22:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Not sure - there seems to be a tendency to describe the Surrey Hills as being part of the North Downs. Geologically you're probably right, but we'd need to find a reference to change it. –EdC 00:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Quite the opposite. You need to find a reference to say it IS on the north downs, as it stands the references for the article do not do that. It is on the greensand ridge, several miles south of the North Downs. --LiamE 01:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Is it a geographical error though? I don't know how far the fact is true that it is only chalk hills which determine the name North Downs. Can you cite evidence?

Can the National Trust [1],the National Trails website [2], The Leisure Guide [3] be so wrong? I will say the Surrey Wildlife Trust does state:[4]

"The highest point in south east England, Leith Hill sits upon the Greensand Ridge that runs parallel with the North Downs through Surrey".

Then the "Surrey Hills" website [5] combines all the locations under the catch-all title "Surrey Hills", but then carries on:

"there are numerous other locations along the North Downs and Greensand Hills that afford a view over the surrounding countryside"

The point I am making is, has it been established that the North Downs consist of chalk hills and chalk hills only, or is it conceivable that other types of soil/geological formations may be part of the name "North Downs". Can you actually cite any sources that this is so? I am afraid you will have to now that so many different opinions seem to be abroad. Or is it just a matter of 'you pays your money and takes your choice'?

I am also going to put my points into the talk page of the North Downs article. Dieter Simon 00:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello. The following extracts are from the Wealden District volume of the British Regional Geology series published by the National Environment Research Council's Institute of Geological Sciences (4th Ed. 1965). You should be able to borrow a copy from the local public library.

Page 39 "The Weald proper is surrounded by the chalk downs, the North Downs extending from Farnham to Dover and the South Downs extending from Petersfield to Eastbourne. The greater part of the chalk downland is occupied by Upper Chalk; Middle Chalk and Lower Chalk crop out chiefly in the scarped slopes of the North and South Downs, and at the bottom of some valleys."

P67 "...the Lower Greensand escarpment which reaches nearly 1000 ft OD in the Leith Hill district of Surrey includes the highest part of the Weald... The Chalk Downs encircle the Lower Greensand hills from which they are separated by a narrow belt of low-lying ground... In contrast to that of the Lower Greensand the chalk escarpment is remarkably constant in height throughout its length..."

P69 "The district includes the four well-known hills of Leith Hill, Holmbury Hill, Coneyhurst Hill and Winterfold Heath, and forms the highest part of the Lower Greensand outcrop of the Weald, the top of Leith Hill being 965 ft above sea level."

I think that these extracts show that the British Geological Survey consider that the Greensand Ridge is not part of the North Downs and that the North Downs are purely a Chalk formation. Mertbiol 16:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Two further references. (They are both from specialist academic geology books, so it may be difficult to obtain copies.)

Benninson GM and Wright AE (1969) The geological history of the British Isles Published by Edward Arnold (London)

"Chert is important in the western outcrops and so reinforces the lower Greensand that it forms a higher outcrop at Leith Hill than that of the chalk Downs nearby." page 321

Dines HG and Edmunds FH (1933) The Geology of the country around Reigate and Dorking published by the Department of Science and Industry Research

"The chalk hills or North Downs form a bold and striking feature rising abruptly on the north side side of Holmsdale and continuing except where broken by gaps across the district." page 1

If you would like to challenge this then you need to provide a peer-reviewed publication which explicitly says that the name North Downs is also used for the Greensand Ridge. The chalk and greensand outcrops may well be closely associated, but that does not mean that the same name is used for both. Mertbiol 12:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is the same section with the reply from Dr D T Aldiss which I have already included in the talk page for the article 'North Downs':

Hi, Mertbiol and LiamE, I wish to apologise about the discussion on my part and that your points were absolutely correct. I should like to cite the reply I received to my query from Dr Donald T Aldiss, of the British Geological Survey:

Dear Mr Simon

Thank you for your enquiry of 1 November 2007.

You wrote: Three queries have been thrown up in a couple of Wikipedia articles: 1. Is it true that both the North Downs as well as the South Downs are pure chalk hill ranges and nothing but chalk hills?

2.Is the Greensand Ridge, for example, a purely vertical and separate inclusion and has no horizontal layers of greensand either underlying or overlaying layers of chalk in the Downs?

3. Is Leith Hill which is on the Greensand Ridge therefore not classified as being part of the North Downs at all?

I would be grateful if you could clear this up and allow me to quote your reply whatever it may be.

<1 One should be aware of a distinction between the rock type (lithology) 'chalk' (no capital letter), which is a type of rather pure fine-grained limestone, and the lithostratigraphic unit, the 'Chalk Group' (always with a capital letter), which is a succession of rock strata of Upper Cretaceous age. The Chalk Group is composed mostly of chalk but includes other rock types such as flint and 'marl' (clay-rich chalk).

In general, downland topography is formed by the Chalk, including both the North Downs and the South Downs. The Chalk in these hills is in some places overlain by superficial deposits such as gravels or the clay-with-flints, but otherwise it is true that the North Downs and South Downs are formed of nothing but the Chalk.

2 The Greensand Ridge is separate from the Downs. Again, one has to be aware of the distinction between 'greensand' (typically glauconitic sand or sandstone; literally 'green sand') and 'the Greensand', a lithostratigraphic term which usually refers to the Lower Greensand Group (of Lower Cretaceous age). The Lower Greensand does contain some greensand, but also much silt, clay and limestone: most of it is neither green nor sand. It forms a distinct layer below the Gault Formation and the Upper Greensand Formation which directly underlie the Chalk Group. The 'Greensand Ridge' typically refers to one of a series of escarpments formed by the Lower Greensand. In Surrey, the Upper Greensand is thin and is not separately marked by rising ground, but elsewhere (in Sussex and Berkshire, for example) it too forms an escarpment.

These groups and formations each occur in separate layers. In Surrey these dip northwards, generally at an angle of 2 degrees or less but increasing to as much as 55 degrees in the Hogs Back area, west of Guildford.

No greensand occurs above the Chalk, except in the sense that there are some thin beds of green glauconitic sand in the Lambeth Group and other Palaeogene-age deposits of the London Basin.

If you need further information about the stratigraphic units named here, please refer to the BGS Lexicon of Named Rock Units: http://www.bgs.ac.uk/lexicon/lexicon_intro.html

3 Leith Hill forms part of the Greensand Ridge, not part of the North Downs as most people would use the term.

If you wish to quote this information, please acknowledge that its source is the British Geological Survey.

I would be interested to know which Wikipedia articles have thrown up these questions, please.

yours sincerely

Don Aldiss

D T Aldiss, PhD CGeol
District Geologist, London and the south-east

British Geological Survey
Keyworth
Nottingham
NG12 5GG

>

I have replied to Dr Aldiss and mentioned the two articles involved, 'North Downs' and 'Leith Hill'. So, if you find anything in the articles that is missing in the light of what he has said, please complement them. Hope that this will be satisfactory to everyone concerned. I shall also add this to the article "North Downs". Dieter Simon 00:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Question concerning the burial Of Richard Hull

In the body of information regarding the tower, it states that Richard Hull was buried upside down because he thought that the world would one day turn "topsy turvy" and that when this happened he would be the right way up. This may of course be right but I cannot help but wonder if the writer was given this mixed up with Peter Labilliere who was buried at nearby Box Hill in this manner. Having studied local history at Dorking Library when I was younger, I had access to some old history books and none of these mentioned the upside down burial. Although it clearly states that Richard Hull was indeed interred in the lower part of the tower. — Sameko (talk)

Battle of Acleah

There is some debate as to whether Aethelwulf fought the vikings here. Stenton claims it definitely was not here as Ockley was not referred to by this name until several centuries later. The Buckinghmashire village of Oackley is seen by some as a more likely candidate. Altered the wording to add that it is not certain.Robruss24 13:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Charles Darwin at Leith Hill Place

It is well documented from his letters that Charles Darwin stayed several times at Leith Hill Place and conducted several field studies there. He particularly worked on worms and their effects on the soil. There are 3 'worm stones' still in place nearby. He also conducted some research on soils in and around the nearby Roman Villa at Abinger. Finally, he communicated with Russel Wallace whilst he was staying in Rose Hill in nearby Dorking. Unfortunately, I only have second-hand sources for this information (a private lecture at a local society). Does anyone have acces to sources for this? It would be an interesting addition to the article.Robruss24 (talk) 08:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Which 13 counties?

Does anyone have a source which says which 13 counties can be seen from Leith Hill? I'd guess there are about 9 obvious ones: Surrey, Kent, Sussex, Hampshire, Berkshire, London, Essex, Herts, Bucks. What are the other 4? SP-KP (talk) 16:57, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Currently Sussex is technically 2 counties, east and west, and London has 2 separate administrative areas (City of London and Greater London) which brings it up to 11. I'd hazard a guess that some of the Chilterns can be seen with a telescope, (too much heat haze today) which might bring in Oxfordshire and Bedfordshire as the last 2. Will go up there when it's clear and work it out — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.24.252.178 (talk) 18:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the National Trust claims that 13 counties were visible back in 1905 (not today). (Trees have grown up and there have been some boundary changes since.) There's a display in the tower itself, which lists them all. (You can see the list in this video around the 4:40 mark.) The counties are: Surrey, Herts, Essex, Kent, East Sussex, West Sussex, Dorset, Hampshire, Wiltshire, Berks, Oxfordshire, Bucks and Bedfordshire. (IMHO Dorset and Wiltshire are too much of a stretch and I am surprised that London and Middlesex are not listed instead!) Mertbiol (talk) 15:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Leith Hill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100822021651/http://bubl.ac.uk/org/tacit/marilyns/chapter4.htm to http://bubl.ac.uk/org/tacit/marilyns/chapter4.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:28, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Leith Hill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120214063118/http://www.surreyhills.org/The-Surrey-Hills/The-Surrey-Hills-Landscape/Hills-and-Views.aspx to http://www.surreyhills.org/The-Surrey-Hills/The-Surrey-Hills-Landscape/Hills-and-Views.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140320183310/http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/leith-hill/things-to-see-and-do/leith-hill-place/ to http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/leith-hill/things-to-see-and-do/leith-hill-place/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:11, 20 December 2017 (UTC)