Nice ‘n easy: from Huddersfield central, take the A641 road north to Brighouse, but barely a half-mile out of town turn left up the Halifax Old Road. Go on here for nearly a mile, then keep your eyes peeled for the aptly-named South Cross Road on your right. Go up here all the way to the end where it meets with Cowcliffe Hill Road. Here, at the junction, right by the roadside at the edge of the wall, is the remains of the old cross-base, all but covered in vegetation. You’ll see it.
Archaeology & History
The little-known remains of a post-medieval cross base can still be seen, albeit very overgrown, right by the roadside. The upstanding stone cross that once stood upon it has long since gone (perhaps broken up and built into the wall). It may have been one of two such crosses relatively close to each other: as this one is found at South Cross Road, there may have been another one at the nearby North Cross Road, but history seems to be silent on the matter.
Top of the cross-base
The cross-base itself has several holes cut into it where the standing stone cross was fixed upright. Very little seems to be known about this monument. George Redmonds (2008) told simply that, “the base of a cross survives on Cowcliffe Hill Road, no doubt marking the ancient crossroads. It explains the names North and South Cross Roads.” He added that, “The base of the cross survives, partly hidden in the undergrowth, and it is the only visible evidence we have of several similar crosses in the township.”
References:
Redmonds, George, Place-Names of Huddersfield, GR Books: Huddersfield 2008.
Acknowledgements: Huge thanks to Liz Sykes for helping out big-time to uncover the base from beneath the mass of herbage.
Cross (destroyed): OS Grid Reference – SJ 2534 7208
Archaeology & History
Actual location of the cross
This long-gone site, described in the Domesday Record of 1086 as Atiscros Hund, (or “hundred”, which is the word given to an administrative division of land which, at that time, was on the western edge of Cheshire bordering Wales), gained its title from an old English personal name, Æti. The fact that it stood on an ancient boundary and was included in Domesday, means it would have been a stone cross. Its location was shown on the 1871 Ordnance Survey map (and several subsequent ones), based on traditional accounts about its position. The site is still preserved in local street-names.
Referring to the monument itself, Thomas Pennant (1796) said that it still existed in his day, telling that,
“A cross stood there, the pedestal of which I remember to have seen standing. There is a tradition that, in very old times, there stood a large town at this place; and, it is said, the foundations of buildings have been frequently turned up by the plough.”
References:
Dodgson, J.M., The Place-Names of Cheshire – volume 4, Cambridge University Press 1972.
Pennant, Thomas, The History of the Parishes of Whiteford and Holywell, B. & J. White: London 1796.
Taylor, Henry, Historic Notices, with Topographical and other Gleanings Descriptive of the Borough and County-Town of Flint, Elliot Stock: London 1883.
To reach here from Stirling or Bannockburn, take the B9124 east to Cowie (and past it) for 3¾ miles (6km), turning left at the small crossroads; or if you’re coming from Airth, the same B9124 road west for just about 3 miles, turning right at the same minor crossroads up the long straight road. Drive to the dead-end of the road and park up. You’ll notice that this is a crossroads of dirt-tracks. Walk along the one that heads to the houses you can see on a rise above the fields, eastwards. About 300 yards on, instead of going up towards the houses, walk thru the gate and along the wall-edge for 85 yards and go thru the gate to your right. You’ll see a small rise covered in gorse trees 100 yards in front you and roughly in the middle of it all, you’ll find this carving.
Archaeology & History
The naked stone
When John Bruce (1896) wrote his article on the mighty Cochno Stone a few miles north of mighty Glasgow, he left some end-notes about a petroglyph near Carnock (near Castleton) that was “found to bear a few much weathered cups with concentric circles.” He wasn’t at all clear where the carving was located, merely telling that it was “in the Gosham Park” area on the Carnock estate. This vague description was probably the reason why, when the lads from the Royal Commission came looking for it in August 1955, they left without success. Nevertheless, when Ron Morris (1981) explored this area he located the place-name of Gosham Field and, therein, this multi-ringed carving. It seems more than likely that this was the carving described by Mr Bruce – and it’s an impressive one!
Despite being eroded by the passage of time, the carved design is still pretty easy to see, comprising a cluster of archetypal cup-and-multiple rings in close proximity to each other, etched onto a sloping stone. Ron Morris’s (1981) description told that, 125 yards east of Gosham Field’s western wall,
“is a prominent greywacke outcrop, part of a rocky ridge running NW-SE, exposed in 1969-75 for 3m by 2m (10ft x 6ft), 4m (12) high on its S, but at ground level elsewhere, sloping 15° NE. On its fairly smooth surface are:
“5 cups-and-complete rings, with no grooves, 3 with three rings, 1 with four, and 1 with five rings, up to 36m (14in) diameters and 1cm (½in) depth.”
Ron Morris’ 1981 sketch
Yet contrary to Morris’ description, there are some “grooves”, or carved lines emerging from some of the rings; faint but definitely there. You can make them out in the accompanying photos above. (are there any sketch artists out there could accompany us to these carvings, so we get some good portraits of the stones?) When Maarten van Hoek (1996) visited this carving he also missed these ‘ere carved grooves.
An additional feature that needs to be mentioned is the cluster of small geological deep natural cups, inches away from the carved rings on the southern edge of this stone (completely covered in vegetation in the attached photos). The same feature also exists on the southern edges of the Castleton 5, Castleton 6 and Castleton 12 carvings and it probably had some mythic relationship with the petroglyph.
Apparently there’s another cup-marked stone, now hidden beneath the dense undergrowth of gorse, 20-30 yards east along this same geological ridge. The rock surfaces here need to be laid bare to enable a greater visual experience of the wider Castleton complex.
Morris, Ronald W.B., The Prehistoric Rock Art of Southern Scotland, BAR: Oxford 1981.
Ritchie, Graham & Anna, Edinburgh and South-East Scotland, Heinemann: London 1972.
Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland, Stirlingshire: An Inventory of the Ancient Monuments – volume 1, HMSO: Edinburgh 1963.
Royal Commission on the Ancient & Historical Monuments of Scotland, Archaeological Sites and Monuments of Stirling District, Central Region, Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 1979.
van Hoek, M.A.M.,”Prehistoric Rock Art around Castleton Farm, Airth,” in Forth Naturalist & Historian, volume 19, 1996.
Located next to the old stocks by the main roundabout right in the middle of the town is this tall market cross, nearly ten feet high and well known to the local people. It has been described by several local historians, although its recognition as a “market cross” is slightly contentious as it seems there are no written records to indicate that a market ever existed here. The great Baildon historian, W. Paley Baildon (1912) was unable to find any info about such a market, commenting simply that “most villages…had crosses in medieval times, many of which still exist; so that the presence of a cross at Baildon is (not necessarily) evidence of a market.”
His description of its form is as valid then as it is to this day:
Old sketch, c.1900Old photo of the cross c.1900
“The cross, as we see it to-day, is not an interesting object. The square platform of two stages, with its well worn stones, looks as though it might be medieval, and part of the original work. In the centre of this is a large square block of stone, from which rises a tall cylindrical shaft.
The base is square, with chamfered corners, and a plain roll moulding at the upper edge; the cap is a plain square block, without any attempt at ornament.”
One of Bradford’s industrial historians, William Cudworth (1876) thought that the present cross replaced an earlier one, and that this one was erected by a member of the wealthy Butler family a few centuries ago. Mr Baildon wasn’t quite as sure as Mr Cudworth. Nevertheless they both agreed that this edifice replaced an earlier one. Baildon said:
“My own view is that there was probably a cross here in medieval times; that it was destroyed, either after the Reformation (as so many were), or by the Puritan soldiery during the Civil War; that the steps and perhaps the base remained; and that in the eighteenth century, when the Butlers were one of the leading families in the place, one of them may have erected a new shaft on the old site.”
In much earlier days it was said to have been surrounded by a grove of trees and a brook ran by its side. Villagers would gather here as it was “a favourite gossiping resort.” At the beginning of the 20th century, an old gas light surmounted this old relic.
References:
Baildon, W. Paley, Baildon and the Baildons – volume 1, St. Catherine’s Press: Adelphi 1912.
Cudworth, William, Round about Bradford, Thomas Brear: Bradford 1876.
la Page, John, The Story of Baildon, William Byles: Bradford 1951.
40-50 yards southwest of the Castleton (11) cup-and-ring stone, beneath the marauding mass of spindly-killer-bushes (or ‘gorse’ as it’s known in the common tongue) could once be seen another impressive cup-and-ring, etched along the edge of the small rocky rise. But Nature has done Her bit and hidden the old stone for the time being. A pity – for as the old photos and sketches show, it’s quite a good one.
Listed in several archaeo-surveys, the best descriptions of this carving are from the reliable pens of Messrs Morris (1981) and van Hoek. (1996) Morris first told us that,
“Leading S from near the farm to Bruce’s Castle (a ruin) is a greywacke ridge, up to 7m (24ft) high on its SW, but at ground level elsewhere, partly turf-covered. Faint cup-marks, some possibly ringed, can still be traced at various points on its top. On a shelf about 7m by 2½m (23ft x 8ft), sloping mostly 20° W, near the steep SW edge, are:
“7 cups-and-complete-rings — in one case broken off at rock edge — one with five rings, 2 with three, and 4 with two rings, up to 51cm (20in) diameter and 2cm (1in) deep. The cup-and-five-rings has a cup-and-two arcs budding from it.”
Fifteen years later, when van Hoek visited the place, it was already “becoming overgrown with gorse,” but fortunately he was able to give us a slightly more detailed description. “There are two engraved surfaces” here, he wrote,
van Hoek’s 1996 sketchSketch from Morris’s text
“The north part slopes 9° to the north and has two cups with two rings each. The smaller is clearly unfinished and possibly the pocking of the east part of the outer ring caused a part of the ring to flake off. Undescribed (by Morris, PB) are a very small cup and one complete ring, and a faint cup with incomplete ring in between the two larger devices although Morris…gives a clear photograph of all these features. (above) The south group is dominated by a large but worn cup-and-five-complete-rings on a sloping surface 16° SSW. It is encircled by four rather distinct cup-and-rings and one very faint cup with one incomplete ring, which has never been reported. All single cups drawn on the plan are very doubtful and probably all are natural, especially the small ones.”
This doesn’t necessarily mean to say that these “probably natural” cups had no bearing on the man-made designs; such elements have been given mythic importance in traditional cultures elsewhere in the world, and some ‘bowls in the UK possess curative folklore of their own.
Due to the importance of this carving, effort needs to be made to clear it of the gorse and so allow fellow students the ability to contextualize it and probably uncover yet more cups-and-rings further along the surface of the rock.
Morris, Ronald W.B., The Prehistoric Rock Art of Southern Scotland, BAR: Oxford 1981.
Royal Commission on the Ancient & Historical Monuments of Scotland, Archaeological Sites and Monuments of Stirling District, Central Region, Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 1979.
van Hoek, M.A.M.,”Prehistoric Rock Art around Castleton Farm, Airth,” in Forth Naturalist & Historian, volume 19, 1996.
Cross / Sacred Tree: OS Grid Reference – NN 581 012
Also Known as:
Law Tree
Archaeology & History
As a folklorist and antiquarian, I find this long lost site more than intriguing. Most ancient crosses are stone; but in early centuries many were made from wood which, obviously, have decayed down the years. But this cross, located on the northeast edge of the Lake of Menteith, was actually a tree: a hawthorn no less. This choice would have been made based on it being one of the few trees that are deemed sacred in both christian and indigenous lore. It was described—albeit briefly—in A.F. Hutchison’s (1899) excellent history book of the area:
“The cross of the burgh is said to have been the trunk of an old hawthorn tree, which stood by the lake side, opposite the manse of Port, and was known as ” the law tree.” Around this tree an annual fair was held in the month of September, and called after St. Michael.”
We’re obviously seeing here the traditional animistic veneration of trees by local people, with the incoming christian symbol being grafted onto it. Hawthorns were one of the potent protections against witchcraft and so the handshake between christian and pre-christian systems obviously worked here. Faerie-lore was also rampant at many places for many miles around this site.
References:
Hutchison, Andrew F., The Lake of Menteith – Its Islands and Vicinity, Eneas Mackay: Stirling 1899.
Located near the top of one of Castleton’s rocky island outcrops and overlooking extensive flatlands many miles to the south, this impressive multi-ringed carving was rediscovered in May 1985 by the Ordnance Survey lads and, I believe, was first described in an article by Maarten van Hoek (1996), whose description we’ll get to shortly. It’s a design that incorporates some of Nature’s own cup-marks alongside the marks of men.
The overall design here is captured within three sections of the rock: between three large natural cracks running roughly north-south, as clearly shown in the accompanying photos. It’s a multi-period carving, executed over what seems to be a considerable period of time—probably several centuries. I base this on the differing degrees of erosion between the respective multiple rings — a factor found several of the Castleton carvings.
Eastern & central cup ring symbols
Closeup of central rings
One of the most eroded sections can be seen on the eastern side of the rock, where a very faded cup-and-three-rings was carved. Initially it looked as if there was no central cup to this, but as I looked across this towards the falling sun, what seemed to be a possible ‘dot’ was noticed in the centre, very faint indeed. There are several single cup-marks just a few inches east of this triple-ring, which look more recent than its eroded companion.
On the other side of the long natural crack we see two quite distinct multiple cup-and-rings: one with three rings and another with four, both of which have short carved lines running from their centres westwards. Between these, a smaller single cup-and-ring nestles quietly, almost innocuously, minding its own business! But below these two large multiple-ringers there’s a very faint cup-and-double ring, only visible when the light conditions are just right. In numerous attempts I made to catch this element in my photos, none were successful. (I’m a crap photographer, which doesn’t help!) Due to the erosion on this element, this is possibly the earliest section of the carving. Above these rings, close to the edge of the small cliff, one or two carved lines can be seen that run into natural ‘bowls’ which, in all probability, were of some significance to those who made this design. In cultures outside the UK, such elements have sometimes been afforded mythic importance.
Several other natural small ‘bowls’ exist above the most blatant of the cup-and-rings here, on the west side of the rock, which consists of a cup-and-triple-ring no less. Erosion levels on this would seem to suggest that it was the most recent element of this petroglyph.
When Maarten van Hoek (1996) wrote his report, there was much less vegetation covering the stone and another cup-and-ring could be seen on the northernmost section of the rock – as his sketch here shows. He wrote:
Westernmost element
van Hoek’s 1996 sketch
“Near the edge are five cup-and-rings and possibly up to four single cups, all on rock sloping about 6″ to 12″ NW. The easternmost set consists of the worn remains of three rings (the innermost hardly visible) without a distinct central cup. Across a crack is a cup with four rings, the outer incomplete and curving away; another cup with four rings, mostly incomplete. A small cup-and-one-ring sits in between. South of this group may be some grooves and a single cup, all doubtful being very near the cliff-edge which is heavily pitted by erosion. The westernmost cup with three ovalish rings is the best preserved set of the group. Further away from the scarp is one single cup on a horizontal part and even further N is a cup-and-two-rings on a part sloping 6″ SW.”
It would be good to completely clear this rock and make it all visible again, as it was long long ago…
References:
Morris, Ronald W.B., The Prehistoric Rock Art of Southern Scotland, BAR: Oxford 1981.
van Hoek, M.A.M.,”Prehistoric Rock Art around Castleton Farm, Airth,” in Forth Naturalist & Historian, volume 19, 1996.
Amidst the cluster of at least twenty petroglyphs found at Castleton, this example close to the fence 60 yards southeast of the farmhouse, wasn’t included in the earlier surveys by Morris (1981) and van Hoek. (1996) At this spot there a large smooth sloping rock broken into separate parts with natural cracks running over it at different angles, partially covered in soil. The stone faces north. On the easternmost side there exists a number of carved symbols, most notable of which is a large double cup-and-ring. You can’t really miss it! The other elements however, can be a little more troublesome to see…
Cup, rings & cross
Castleton 11 carving
A curious motif is the quite notable ‘cross’ that’s been pecked onto the stone, above the primary cup-and-ring. This cross is probably a later addition to the petroglyph, perhaps added to christianize the original mythic function. From the cross, it looks as if a curved line has been carved down towards the double-ring, nearly linking them together, which could also be viewed as a movement from the pre-christian to the new christian meaning conferred upon the stone. …Just an idea…
It should be noted that a faint cross was also cut into natural cracks in the Castleton 2 carving, 380 yards northwest of here.
There are two more cup-and-rings on the stone, both on the right-hand side of the cross. These were carved quite separately over large periods of time, as evidenced by their degrees of erosion. One cup-and-ring (if you can call it that) is a somewhat erratically executed series of peck-marks that strives to join up with each other, almost failing miserably, creating a somewhat disjointed cup-and-ring. Next to this, but much much fainter, is a cup-and-half-ring that was obviously carved decades, if not centuries earlier. You can just make them out in the two photos here, to the right of the cross.
Carving in negative
Another very faint cup-and-half-ring also exists to the left of the primary motif that was only visible from one or two angles when we visited the place the other day, but barely shows up on any of the photos we took. There are a number of single cup-marks, mainly between the double-ring and the smaller cup-and-rings, some of which are probably natural, but several seem to have been worked upon by human hands.
A now-hidden petroglyph—known as “Castleton-3” in the Morris and van Hoek surveys—consisting of multiple cup-and-rings, exists beneath the mass or gorse bushes about forty years to the southwest. We could do with cutting this back so we can see the carving again.
References:
Morris, Ronald W.B., The Prehistoric Rock Art of Southern Scotland, BAR: Oxford 1981.
van Hoek, M.A.M.,”Prehistoric Rock Art around Castleton Farm, Airth,” in Forth Naturalist & Historian, volume 19, 1996.
Crosses / Legendary Rocks (destroyed): OS Grid Reference – SE 1975 2909
Archaeology & History
Site location at Cross House
Not to be confused with a much more renowned namesake above Ilkley, this was the name given to two old stones that once existed in the middle of the East Bierley hamlet (as it was then) southeast of Bradford. They were two large boulders next to each other, not far from the early farmstead of Cross House (see map, right) and were described in James Parker’s (1904) historic collage of the area, where he informed us that:
“On the village green (are) the primitive large stones locally called the “Cow and Calf stones,” which used to be in days gone by a Preaching Cross and Market Cross.”
When William Cudworth (1876) described the place nearly thirty years prior, he only mentioned a single cross, telling us:
“There is a lane which has long been called Kirkgate at Birkenshaw, leading up to an ancient cross on the hill. The fact of this cross being on the hill must have given rise to the name Kirk (church) gate, as there was not, until a few years ago, any church at Birkenshaw. In a previous paper we had occasion to notice the existence of the cross as an evidence of a pre-church period.”
The meaning behind the name Cow & Calf is unexplained by our respective authors, although Cudworth’s citation of “the cross as an evidence of a pre-church period” is probably not without merit here. It seems very likely that the animal names of the two large stones—akin to the Cow & Calf Rocks at Ilkley and others of the same name elsewhere in the country—that sat near the top of the hill, probably possessed a creation myth similar to others of the same name. From this, it seems logical that local folk held the rocks as important, which would have obviously attracted the regressive attention of Church; so they stuck a cross here to christianize the place and in doing so ensured that local people could continue using the place as a meeting place. This practice (as if you didn’t already know) was widespread.
Although Mr Cudworth seems to give the first real account of the place, field-name records of 1567 listed a ‘Cowrosse’, which may have been the “cross on the Cow” stone. A.H. Smith (1961) listed the site and suggested the element –rosse may derive from a local dialect word meaning a marsh, but a ‘cow’s marsh‘ seems a little odd. It is perhaps just as likely that an error was made in the writing of rosse instead of crosse.
References:
Cudworth, William, Round about Bradford, Thomas Brear: Bradford 1876.
Parker, James, Illustrated History from Hipperholme to Tong, Percy Lund: Bradford 1904.
Smith, A.H., The Place-Names of the West Riding of Yorkshire – volume 3, Cambridge University Press 1961.
Mentioned only in passing in the Becca and Aberford Enclosure Act of 1825, all remains of this site have gone. It was subsequently referred to by Edmund Bogg (1904) in his journey through Elmet as previously standing where the Roman road veered off to the northeast from the “new road”, as it was then. Bogg’s brief description told that from Nut Hill,
“A little distance south, where the old and new roads part, formerly stood a cross; Highcross Cottage keeps its memory green.”
References:
Bogg, Edmund, The Old Kingdom of Elmet, James Miles: Leeds 1904.
