From the Askwith Moor dusty parking spot, walk up the road for 160 yards where, on each side of the road, you’ll see a straight line running across the moors. On the left-side (west) walk onto the moor for 50-60 yards along this line, then dead straight west into the heather for another 50-60 yards and look around. It’s hard to see if the heather’s grown.
Archaeology & History
Found by Richard Stroud on July 20, 2004, this single hut circle is in faint evidence. About twenty feet across with a section of the low walling either missing, or more probably buried in the peat. Although no other hut-circles were immediately visible, this was probably because of the excessive heather-growth. I have little doubt that others will be close to this one, as the area is littered with prehistoric sites. The petroglyph catalogued as Askwith Moor 529 is very close to this hut circle.
Pretty easy really. Get to the ancient St. Michael’s Church on the dead-end road just outside of Linton village. As you approach it, look into the field on your right. Y’ can’t miss it!
Archaeology & History
Linton ‘Standing Stone’
This is an oddity. It could perhaps be little more than one of the Norber erratics found a few miles further north — but it looks more like a smaller version of one of the Avebury sarsens! Just under six-feet tall, it was shown to me by Adrian Lord yesterday (when the heavens subsequently opened and an outstanding downpour-and-half followed), who’d come across it only a week or two earlier themselves when they visited the ancient church next door. The stone certainly aint in any archaeology registers (no surprise there); and as one local man we spoke to yesterday told us, “there used to be several other standing stones in the same field, cos I remember ’em when I was a kid. ” The gent we spoke to seemed to know just about everything about the local archaeology and history of the area (one of those “damn good locals” you’re sometimes lucky to find!). He told us that the other stones which used to be there had been moved by the local farmer over the years, for use in his walls. So it seems that this is the last one standing. What looks like several other fallen stones can be seen further down the field, just next to the church. But this one’s pretty impressive.
Close-up of gnarled rockLooking south-ish!
The church of St. Michael next door was, tells the information inside, built upon some old pagan site — which gives added thought to this upright stone perhaps being the ruin of an old circle, or summat along those lines. The church, incidentally, is built right next to the River Wharfe.
Not far from here we find an almost inexhaustible supply of prehistoric remains at Grassington and district (less than a mile north). A huge excess of Bronze- and Iron Age remains scatter the fields all round the town. And aswell as the Yarnbury henge close by, there is — our local man told us, “another one which no-one knows abaat, not far away”!
Folklore
The folklore of this area is prodigious! There is faerie-lore, underworld tales, healing wells, black-dogs, ghosts, earthlights – tons of the damn stuff. But with such a mass of prehistoric remains, that aint too surprising. And although there appears no direct reference to this particular stone (cos I can’t find a damn reference about it), the old Yorkshire history magus, Harry Speight (1900), wrote of something a short distance away along the lane from the church. He told that,
“In the field-wall beside the road may be seen some huge glacial boulders, and there is one very large one standing alone in the adjoining field, which from one point of view bears a striking resemblance to a human visage; and a notion prevails among the young folk of the neighbourhood that this stone will fall on its face when it hears the cock crow.”
Just the sort of lore we find attached to some other standing stones in certain parts of the country. And in fact, from some angles, this ‘ere stone has the simulacrum of a face upon it; so this could be the one Speight mentions (though his directions would be, unusually, a little out).
There are heathen oddities about the church aswell: distinctly pre-christian ones. An old “posset-pot” was used for local families to drink from after the celebration of a birth, wedding or funeral here. And at Hallowtide – the old heathen New Year’s Day,
“certain herbs possessed the power of enabling those who were inclined to see their future husbands or wives, or even recognizing who was to die in the near future.”
And in an invocation of the great heathen god (the Church called it the devil), Speight also went on to tell that:
“The practice at Linton was to walk seven times round the church when the doomed one would appear.”
In a watered down version of this, local people found guilty of minor transgressions in and around Linton (thieves, fighters, piss-heads, etc),
“was compelled to seek expiation by walking three time around Linton Church.”
This would allegedly cure them of their ‘sins’! Rush-bearing ceremonies were also enacted here. On the hill above, the faerie-folk lived. And until recently, time itself was still being measured by the three stages of the day: sunrise, midday and sunset; avoiding the modern contrivances of the clock, and maintaining the old pre-christian tradition of time-keeping. Much more remains hidden…
References:
Speight, Harry, Upper Wharfedale, Elliott Stock: London 1900.
Tumulus (destroyed): OS Grid Reference – TF 232 018
Archaeology & History
Very little was known about this now lost burial mound. It was one of several nearby but, thankfully, the local historian and archaeologist E. Thurnam Leeds (who once lived at the nearby Eyebury Farm) sent a letter to the Society of Antiquaries in London, describing some pottery and other remains that he’d found there:
“The small pot of a late Bronze Age type and the other sherds exhibited were found in a tumulus known as Oliver Cromwell’s Hill, at Eyebury, near Peterborough. As only a portion of the tumulus has been examined as yet, it is proposed to defer a full account of the excavations until further progres has been made. The tumulus is of the round type, about 40 yards in diameter and 5 feet high at the centre. On three sides traces of a ditch were met with, containing soil which had evidently been burnt. Close to the gravel in the centre of the tumulus there were two distinct layers of charcoal, and in two places apparently remains of hearths. The small pot was found only 1½ feet down on the south-eastern side of the mound, 39 feet from the centre. In the centre itself at various depths were found sherds, some of Bronze Age forms; but a pice of a rimmed vase found at a depth of 3 feet 6 inches, about 6 inches above the first charcoal layer, appears to be of Roman date, in which case the centre of the tumulus must have been disturbed in those times, though the charcoal floors were never pierced. Bones of various animals, including sheep, pig, dog and hare, and a large flint flake were also found.”
As far as I’m aware, no further detailed examinations took place at this curiously-named hillock, whose folktale I’ve yet to read.
References:
Leeds, E.T., ‘Letter,’ in Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries, 22:1, 1910.
Not far south of the smaller Lesser Cursus monument, this huge linear earthwork was the very first cursus to be described, by William Stukeley no less, who thought it to be an old race-course for charioteers and the like! He stumbled upon this: a curious gigantic linear earthwork feature, stretching for nearly two miles roughly east-west and as wide a football field, cut into the Wiltshire Earth, betraying all notions of ‘primitive’ histories as proclaimed by the ‘intellectuals’ of his day. They were clearly wrong! This immense enigmatic structure, still baffles the same creed of intellectuals to this day — but at least our old ancestors have been granted greater abilities than previously believed. In his book on Stonehenge in 1740, Mr Stukeley described this,
“most noble work, contriv’ed to reach from the highest ground of two hills, extended the intermediate distance over a gentle valley; so that the whole cursus lies conveniently under the eye of the most numerous quantity of spectators. To render this more convenient for site, it is projected on the side of more rising ground, chiefly looking towards Stonehenge. A delightful prospect from the temple, when this vast plain was crowded with chariots, horsemen and foot, attending these solemnities with innumerable multitudes.”
Sir Norman Lockyer propounded its function as astronomical, aligning with the Pleiades around 2000 BC — a date we now know to be inconsistent with its construction, although as John North said in his Stonehenge (1997):
“Lockyer’s chronology was certainly better than the general archaeological consensus at the time.”
But further archaeological alignments and leys have been suggested running eastwards from here. And as Paul Devereux pointed out, “In the case of this cursus, archaeology got there first.” J.F.S. Stone, who carried out some excavations at the cursus in 1947, noted that
“its axis, if projected 1500 yards east, strikes Woodhenge and passes the Cuckoo or Cuckold Stone by the way.”
This was endorsed in 1981 by archaeologists John Hedges and David Buckley:
“In addition to aligning upon Woodhenge, the Greater Stonehenge cursus also sights upon the Cuckoo or Cuckold Stone.”
Alignment to Beacon Hill
In Roy Loveday’s (2006) survey of cursus monuments he told how this alignment goes much further, telling how it aligns “on the lower, northernmost prominence of Beacon Hill 8km away”, crossing Woodhenge on its way. Such suggestions used to bring outcries of derision from the archaeological fraternity, but it seems archaeologists themselves are making such claims more and more these days. At the forefront of modern alignment research in previous decades was Paul Devereux — and it was he who first noted the line-up with the distant Beacon Hill from the Great Cursus, telling:
“The course of the alignment can be extended eastwards a few miles beyond Woodhenge to cross the barrow-dotted ridge of Beacon Hill — a perfect example of a Wakins-style ‘initial point.’ The ridge is highly visible from Woodhenge. It disappears from view as one walks westwards down the cursus, but reappears clearly as the west end is approached. Indeed, the west end is so placed that it is at about the furthest point from which the Beacon Hill ridge , and the intermediate on which the eastern end of the cursus fall, can be seen together.”
…to be continued…
References:
Burl, Aubrey, A Brief History of Stonehenge, Robinson: London 2007.
Hedges, John & Buckley, David G., The Springfield Cursus and the Cursus Problem, Essex County Council 1981.
Loveday, Roy, Inscribed Across the Landscape, Tempus: Stroud 2006.
North, John, Stonehenge, Harper-Collins: London 1997.
Pennick, N. & Devereux, P., Lines on the Landscape: Leys and other Linear Enigmas, Hale: London 1989.
Stone, J.F.S., ‘The Stonehenge Cursus and its Affinities,’ in Archaeological Journal, 104, 1947.
Long Barrow (destroyed): OS Grid Reference – SO 169 357
Also Known as:
Croesllechau
Archaeology & History
It appears to have been Theophilus Jones who first mentioned this all-but-lost megalithic tomb, more than 200 years ago. He told that,
“In a field called Croeslechau about two miles eastward of (Talgarth), but in the parish of Bronllys and on a farm called Bryn-y-groes, is a cromlech, not merely interesting on account of its antiquity, but from the circumstance of a white thorn growing close, and indeed under part of it, which has gradually raised the horizontal or covering-stone several inches out of its original position; it is therefore not only venerable as a relic of very ancient days, but as a natural curiosity.”
Croesllechau tomb in 1809
Thankfully he gave us the fine old drawing of the tomb, here reproduced.
Although shown on an 1832 map of the region, when Crawford (1925) came to describe this old tomb it had already been destroyed. He told that,
“the site is unknown and all memory of it is has completely vanished in the neighbourhood. Mr Evan Morgan had visited the site and reports that no traces of the ‘cromlech’ were visible; nor were enquiries of the farmer at Bradwys any more successful in identifying the site. It is not unlikely that the monument was destroyed when a new road was made…”
References:
Crawford, O.G.S., The Long Barrows of the Cotswolds, John Bellows: Gloucester 1925.
Jones, Theophilus, History of the County of Brecknock, volume 2, George North: London 1809.
Much has been written about this ancient site. Indeed, the archaeologist Alex Gibson (1999) told that, “the ritual complex at Sarn-y-bryn-caled has been extensively studied…and a development sequence based on relative and absolute chronologies, as well as site analogy, has been proposed.” Created over a lengthy period spanning nearly 2000 years, Gibson (1999b) described this monument as a
“cropmark showing as two parallel ditches, 12m apart, running SW-NE for a distance of 370m. Causeways are visible through both side ditches. The terminals are not readily visible on the aerial photographs but have been proven with geophysical survey. The terminal ditches are straight and at right angles to the side ditches. Excavations proved the ditches to be 2m across at the gravel surface and c.0.8m deep. Charcoal from the base of the ditch provided a C14 date of 4960<>70BP. Silting patterns in both ditches and the raised profile of the gravel surface suggest external banks. Towards the NE end of the cursus is a cluster of circular ritual monuments comprising a large pit, timber circle, two ring ditches and a pennanular ring ditch. A possible second pennanular enclosure was located towards the SW end by geophysical survey.”
Less than 200 yards north of the northeast terminal is a second cursus-looking monument, ascribed in Gibson’s (1999b) survey as Sarn-y-bryn-caled II and which runs dead straight for 250 yards. Although being nearly 40 foot across, Gibson thinks this long stretch is more likely to be the remains of an old trackway or road, telling that the very title — Sarn-y-bryn-caled — or “road by the hard hill”, may derive from this secondary linear feature.
Folklore anyone…?
References:
Gibson, Alex & Simpson, Derek (eds.), Prehistoric Ritual and Religion, Sutton: Stroud 1998.
Gibson, Alex, The Walton Basin Project, CBA: York 1999.
Gibson, Alex, ‘Cursus Monuments and Possible Cursus Monuments in Wales,’ in Barclay & Harding’s Pathways and Ceremonies, Oxbow: Oxford 1999b.
Follow the directions to reach the giant Haystack Rock, then follow the footpath west along the moor-edge, round where it bends keeping along the edge of the stream (Backstone Beck) below. A couple of hundred yards after the bend, right by the side of the path. You’ll see it! (if you hit the clearly defined ‘enclosure’ walling, you’ve gone too far)
Archaeology & History
No — not the Rosetta Stone; but it is a lovely carved rock this one. Best seen (as usual) when the rock’s wet and the sun’s heading for (or just emerged from) the horizon — but much of this image is visible even when She’s cloudy.
Close-up of ‘rosette’ design & and other CnRsThe Rosette Stone carving
First mentioned in literary terms (surprisingly) by M.J. Walker (1956), in a short write-up following one of the Bradford Archaeology Group’s moorland walks up here. Nearly six-feet along its longest axis, there are more than 30 cup-marks on this stone, at least three with rings; plus a variety of lines linking some cups to others. At its northern tip is the lovely little ‘rosette’ design, as archaeologists have called it. Others have seen this part of the design as a solar image; a flower; the Pleiades; a ring — take your pick! It is a lovely carving though (if you’re a sad person like me, who’s into these sorta things!). What relevance – if any – it may have had to the ‘enclosure’ within whose edges it sits, is anyone’s guess!
Excavations done close by (focusing mainly on the prehistoric ‘enclosure’ within whose domain this and other carvings occur) uncovered remains of old grooved ware pottery and the remains of flints. (Edwards & Bradley 1999)
The one thing we realise from looking at this design is the difference seen between the ‘accurate’ illustration drawn by archaeologists, and the flesh and blood of the stone itself, in situ. The living rock has much greater form and expression than anything which our desire for accuracy possesses. This aint knocking any attempt to portray the cups, rings and lines on paper correctly to show what the design originally looked like; merely that there’s a world of difference between the experiential vision of the carving and that done with graphic accuracy. But we all know that anyway – so please forgive my little sojourn into speaking the bleedin’ obvious!
References:
Boughey, Keith & Vickerman, E.A., Prehistoric Rock Art of the West Riding, WYAS 2003.
Edwards, Gavin & Bradley, Richard, ‘Rock Carvings and Neolithic Artefacts on Ilkley Moor, West Yorkshire,’ in Grooved Ware in Britain and Ireland (edited by Cleal, R. & MacSween, A.), Oxbow: Oxford 1999.
Hedges, John (ed.), The Carved Rocks on Rombald’s Moor, WYMCC: Wakefield 1986.
Walker, M.J., ‘Ilkley Boulders Tour,’ in Bradford’s Cartwright Hall Archaeology Group Bulletin, 2, 1956.
Pretty easy to find. Follow directions to reach the great cup-and-ring marked Haystack Rock, then follow the footpath west and drop down the slope, crossing the stream of the Backstone Beck below you, the up the steepish slope and turn sharp left when you hit the footpath before the top of this slope. Walk onto the moor! You’ll walk right past the cup-and-ring marked ‘carving 283’ on this path, then the ruinous Backstone Circle a bit further along (50 yds to your right), but keep walking for another 100 yards until you see a large boulder a few yeards to the left of the footpath. That’s it!
Archaeology & History
I first came across this as a kid, sometime in my early to mid-teens, pottering about, looking at any old rock that caught my eye. And this one isn’t hard to miss really. One of the best memories I’ve got of this stone was when a bunch of us came walkabout up here, sometime in the autumn, when the heavens poured all day long to saturation-point — even for those in all their protective gear, such good as it was in the late ’80s to early ’90s. There started out a fair bunch of us—between 20-30 folk—with numbers dwindling sharply when we reached the Apostles. But this stone was visited way before that! Along with Bob Trubshaw, Graeme Chappell, Kaledon Naddair, Edna Whelan and a troop of other mad-folk, we stopped for a while to consider this old rock, with only three cups really visible that day. The others (those cited by the archaeo’s) weren’t picked out, as I remember. But She was pissing-it-down and the wind was really giving-it-some, so we didn’t stop here for long! We all agreed though: it was a nice, worn cup-marked stone.
Gill Head rock carvingGill Head carving (after Hedges 1986)
John Hedges and the Ilkley Archaeology bunch had cited it as ‘cup-and-ring’ in their fine work — the first time this old carving had been in print since it was first etched! A few years later when Messrs Boughey & Vickerman (2003) checked it for their survey, no new features had been noted and they just copied Hedge’s earlier notes. Indeed, it’s just a large boulder with a few archetypal cupmarks on it when it first greets the eyes. Nowt special—and with no companions either.
This is another one mainly for the mad-folk and purists amongst us.
References:
Boughey, Keith & Vickerman, E.A., Prehistoric Rock Art of the West Riding, WYAS 2003.
Hedges, John (ed.), The Carved Rocks on Rombald’s Moor, WYMCC: Wakefield 1986.
Easy enough this one. Take the B4066 west of Woodchester past the Boundary Court and over the cattle grid for 100 yards or so. Note the fence up the slope to your left (south) up the field here head for the triangulation pillar. Once there keep walking for about another 100 yards. You can’t miss it!
Archaeology & History
The mad craniologist John Thurnam (1810-73) was one of several old-school fellas who helped to excavate this grand site on one occasion. Thinking that human sacrifice lay behind virtually all of the burial mounds, Thurnam was part of the Cotteswold Field Club group who investigated the place; and, because of his intellectual capacity in cranial investigations, was listened to by the budding archaeo’s of the day cos he was cleverer than them (hero worshipping). A bit naive of them, but such is the way of some folk! Yet their early account of this site (devoid of Thurnam’s weird notions) is quite invaluable, even today. Described in an address by their President in the Proceedings in 1865, the article tells:
“The Club met at Stroud. The principal work of the day was the opening of a ‘barrow’ on Bown Hill…which had formed the subject of discussion towards the end of the previous season when, the period of the year being too far advanced, the work of exploration was deferred. Workmen had been employed under Dr Paine and Dr Witchell on the two previous days; but beyond the discovery of the entrance to the sepulchral chambers no great progress had been made in the excavation of the mound which, from its size and solidity, proved to be a very laborious operation. In order, therefore, to expedite matters, a strong force of labourers, 22 in number, had been employed from an early hour on the day of the meeting. The mound, which measured about 60 yards in length by 17 in extreme width, was seen to be constructed of angular masses of stone, heaped together without any order or regularity, amongst which were scattered blocks of considerable size and weight.
“The excavators had opened a trench about 100 feet in length, in a direction due east and west by compass. The western extremity was the broadest, the mound gradually diminishing in width to the opposite end. The workmen had struck upon the entrance which, when exposed, showed a chamber formed of five large, unhewn stones, two on each side and one placed transversely, the dimensions of which were 4 feet in width by 8 feet 6 inches in length. There was no covering stone, but the entrance was flanked on either side by a wall of dry masonry, very neatly fitted, forming a segment of a circle, which, if completed, would have enclosed a well-like chamber in front of the entrance to the tumulus. This wall had been abruptly broken off; but there were amongst those present some who thought they detected signs of it having been at one time continuous. It was evident that the whole structure had been thoroughly ransacked and broken up by former explorers; and so completely had the work of devestation been accomplished that hardly one stone was left upon another. The chambers, with the one exception already noted, had been entirely demolished, and but a few bones scattered throughout the whole tumulus remained, all more or less in a fragmentary condition. These fragments comprised one fully developed frontal bone, male; portions of two male lower jaws, and portions of two female skulls; several thigh bones, and bones of the leg and foot, including the remains of children, but all much broken. There were found the remains of six indiiduals at the least, viz, two men, two women and two children, the latter between six and eight years of age. There were several bones of cattle and calves; teeth of horse and ox; a portion of the bones of the foreleg of a dog; several boar’s teeth, tusks and grinders, and parts of jaw bones; a bone ‘scoop’, formed of a shank bone of a horse; and a large quantity of a black unctuous substance, having the appearance of wood or animal charcoal; but no burnt bones. A small portion of a small flint flake was detected in the black paste. Besides the organic remains above enumerated, some pieces of rude pottery were found, which, with a Roman brass coin of the Emperor Germanicus, complete the list of objects yielded…”
Some of the remains found in Bown Hill’s long barrow
A few years later George Witts’ (1883) described the tomb but added little to the description above. When Crawford (1925) came here in December, 1920, the greatest height of the tomb was just ten feet and he described that “the extreme eastern end has been destroyed by quarrying.” He could clearly discern various trenches and the remains of previous excavations around the tomb, but added little further, apart from an important geomantic ingredient:
“It stands near the highest point (763 feet) of the hill and commands a magnificent view. South eastwards can be seen the Berkshire Downs (probably the White Horse Hill and Wayland’s Smithy); northwards May Hill and the Malvern Hills are visible; in the western distance are the Brecknock Beacons and the Black Mountains…”
Crawford later received further notes about the 1863 dig at Bown Hill from the son of Dr Paine that had been written following the original excavation. Although they convey little extra from the above account, I’ll add the notes to this entry in the near future.
References:
Crawford, O.G.S., The Long Barrows of the Cotswolds, John Bellows: Gloucester 1925.
Darvill, Timothy, Prehistoric Gloucestershire, Alan Sutton: Gloucester 1987.
Grinsell, L.V., The Ancient Burial Mounds of England, Methuen: London 1936.
Guide, W.V., ‘Address to the Cotteswold Naturalists’ Field Club,’ in Proceedings of the Cotteswold Naturalists’ Field Club, volume 3, 1865.
Witts, George, Archaeological Handbook of Gloucestershire, G. Norman: Cheltenham 1883.
This stone stands on the south-side of the B4450 just north of the crossroads, halfway between Churchill and Chipping Norton. Generally troublesome to see at first as it tends to get hidden in the hedgerow, so you may need to furrow into the but shrubbery to get to it, but it’s not too difficult to locate with a bit of patience.
Archaeology & History
This small standing stone seems to have been described for the first time in O.G.S. Crawford’s (1925) fine survey of the regions prehistoric remains following a letter he received from a local man, Mr A.D. Passmore, who first drew it to the attention of archaeologists. Crawford told:
“This stone is a little over a mile southwest of Chipping Norton station. It stands in the hedge on the northwest side of the road and is about four feet high… Nothing more is known about it, but it seems not unlikely that it may be of considerable antiquity.”
A few years later Leslie Grinsell (1936) mentioned it in his equally fine survey of prehistoric English tombs and associated remains, describing here, “a large stone which may be the remains of a megalithic monument.” Tom Wilson then illustrated it in our crappy little Old Stones of Rollright (1999) work (which really needs updating and expanding). It’s a cute little stone and may have once served as a companion to a prehistoric tomb as there are many others nearby. It is also quite close to one of the local boundary lines and, p’raps, might once have served as a marker hereabouts. We might never know…
References:
Bennett, Paul & Wilson, Tom, The Old Stones of Rollright and District, Cockley: London 1999.
Crawford, O.G.S., The Long Barrows of the Cotswolds, John Bellows: Gloucester 1925.
Grinsell, Leslie V., The Ancient Burial Mounds of England, Methuen: London 1936.
