The most well-known of prehistoric monuments. They are ostensibly rings of upright standing stones, generally ellipsoid in structure (Alexander Thom did the 7-category assessment), with seemingly multifunctional usage: moot sites, ritual centres and probably alignments. Generally created from the late neolithic through to Iron Age period. In this category are also included sites now defined as ‘ring cairns’ and other circular neolithic and Bronze Age monuments – but it must be stressed that the function of such sites differs from the standard megalithic rings.
Stone Circle (destroyed): OS Grid Reference – SD 822 387
Also Known as:
Pendle Stone Circle
Archaeology & History
A destroyed site mentioned by several local historians. It was positioned at the valley bottom just below Faughs, a hundred yards west of Lower Moss End, where today it is simply overgrown meadows with the typical excess of Juncus reeds. As local investigator John Dixon said, there are “five stones shown on (the 1848) map just west of Spen Brook Mill.”
In the 1970s, one writer described there being several uprights still in place, but a visit here a few weeks back (though I – unusually! – didn’t walk all through the boggy grounds and explore as extensively as I normally would) found nothing.
Its geomancy, however, was striking. The unnamed hill immediately to the north of its position (at the southern end of the legendary Pendle Hill, a coupla hundred yards west of St. Mary’s church) rises up like a great singular ‘pap’ which, to our old ancestors, was animated with female spirit. I sat here in the pouring rain looking up at this hill and its presence in front of the circle was striking.
…And so I walked onto the top of the said hill. Thereupon I found a small gathering of rocks, not unlike a cairn-spoil. When I enquired with a few local people about the age or nature of this rock-pile, I found no-one seemed aware of its existence. Weird. But from the hill itself, the view is excellent – and the small valley amidst which the old circle once stood teems with legends and myth: of cailleachs, ghosts, wells, witches and more. An excellent spot!
The local writer, historian and walker, John Dixon, sent us the following notes of his exploration here:
“Clifford Byrne, the late Nelson antiquarian, mentions in his book ‘Newchurch in Pendle’ the site of a former stone circle that stood just below Faughs, a hundred yards west of Lower Moss End. Today no large stones of any kind can be located anywhere near this spot, the stones having been removed or broken up some time in the past. However, the 1848 6” OS map records the number and position of these stones as being in two parallel lines about a hundred yards apart lined up west to east. The northerly line (SD 823 389) consists of 3 stones, the southerly (SD 823 387) of 4 stones, all being some 3 yards apart.
“It appears that we have an avenue of stones, not a circle. But why their position in the landscape at the headwaters of two valley streams? The Sabden Brook starts its journey westward to meet with the Calder from the stones, while Dimpenley Clough rises from the stones running east to join Pendle Water – could this be of any significance?”
References:
Byrne, Clifford, Newchurch-in-Pendle: Folklore, Fact, Fancy, Legends and Traditions, Marsden Antiquarians: Nelson 1982.
Stone Circle (destroyed): OS Grid Reference – NT 666 286
Archaeology & History
One of those site place-names with a familiar ring to it: Har, boundary; law, tumulus (though it can also be used to mean ‘a meeting place’). Nevertheless, whatever the precise origin of the name, the site here seems to have been destroyed.
Although listed by the Royal Commission in 1956 as a stone circle, John Barnatt thinks it may have been a tomb of sorts – which is what the place-name infers if we’re puritanical about it. Alexander Jeffrey (1864) told us the most, saying that:
“A field to the east of Fairnington village is called Harlaw, from a circle of large stones which stood within it, but which have been removed to serve farm purposes.”
Its exact location is unknown, though the Royal Commission lads thought it probably “stood somewhere near the present Harelaw Plantation,” about a mile east of the village. Any more info on this lost site would be most welcome!
References:
Burl, Aubrey, The Stone Circles of Britain, Ireland and Brittany, Yale University Press 2000.
Gelling, Margaret, Place-Names in the Landscape, Phoenix: London 2000.
Jeffrey, Alexander, The History and Antiquities of Roxburghshire – volume 3, Seton & MacKenzie: Edinburgh 1864.
Royal Commission on the Ancient & Historical Monuments of Scotland, Roxburghshire – volume 2, HMSO: Edinburgh 1956.
Stone Circle (destroyed): OS Grid Reference – SD 714 978
Archaeology & History
This is yet another stone circle that’s been destroyed. It seems to have been described first by Nicolson & Burn (1777) — as “a circle of large stones, supposed to be a monument of druid worship” — but a century later when Reverend Nicholls (1877) came to describe it, he was talking of it in the past tense, saying:
“Fifty years ago there was a circle of stones on the high road leading from Kirkby Stephen to Sedbergh, near Rawthey Bridge, supposed to be a monument of Druid worship. These stones, I have been informed by Mr. William Alderson of Brigg, were blocks of limestone, about three feet high, and were inconsiderably removed for the purpose of helping to build the abutment on the Ravenstonedale side of the present bridge which spans the Rawthey, and bears (the) date 1822. The holes in which the stones stood are, however, yet visible, although overgrown with grass. Collectively they form a circle.”
One writer later (1967) told that the site “seems to have stood on the moor to the left of the road opposite the confluence of the Sally Beck with the Rawthey.” As far as I’m aware, little more is known of the site. Omitted from Burl’s magnum opus, it was included in Waterhouse’s (1985) fine survey of Cumbrian megaliths, but with no further details. But another Victorian writer (Thompson 1892) thought it more likely that the ‘circle’ here was, in fact, more likely a barrow or grave-mound. Sadly, we’ll probably never know…
References:
Anon., Sedbergh, Garsdale and Dent, Reeds: Penrith 1967.
Nicholls, Rev. W., The History and Traditions of Ravenstonedale, John Heywood: Manchester 1877.
Nicolson, J. & Burn, R., The History and Antiquities of the Counties of Westmorland and Cumberland, London 1777.
Thompson, Rev. W., Sedbergh, Garsdale and Dent, Richard Jackson: Leeds 1892.
Waterhouse, John, The Stone Circles of Cumbria, Phillimore: Chichester 1985.
Various ways to get here, probably the easiest is by taking the A639 north from Bolton, up to Turton & Entwhistle Reservoir. Park up in the layby and walk onto the hills behind you (south), right near the very top. Look around!
Archaeology & History
A long article by Major Gilbert J. French — ‘The Stone Circles on Chetham’s Close’ — in one of our northern antiquarian journals of 1894, told us a great deal about the sad remains of this once proud circle. I have reproduced the main body of the article here (with minor editing), which I hope is of interest to local historians and archaeologists around Bolton:
Early drawing of this now-ruined site
From time immemorial the existence of a so-called Druidical circle upon the top of Chetham’s Close has been recognised, and at one time the monuments of this circle must have been very pronounced and prominent. Within the last quarter of a century, however, the stones have been sadly mutilated and in part destroyed. This was chiefly done by the tenant farmer of the late owner, Mr. James Kay, who objected to people visiting the situation. Mr. Kay was communicated with, but did little or nothing to prevent the mutilation. I am glad to say that the present owner has expressed his intention of faithfully restoring and protecting the circle, and by the aid of the plan taken in 1871 by Mr. Thomas Greenhalgh, of Thornydikes, near Bolton, will have little trouble in doing so.
Writing to me on August 9th, 1890, he says: “I have this afternoon spent some time on the site of the Druidical circle with Mr. Edmund Ashworth, and, with the assistance of Mr. Greenhalgh’s plan, we have clearly made out the position of the circle. I am glad to find there are sufficient stones and remains of stones to enable this to be done, and it seems that there are similar stones close at hand to complete the circle.”
By the courtesy of Mr. J. P. Earwaker, I have had placed in my hands an early description of the circle, published in 1829 (August 11th) in the first volume of the Cambrian Society, and contributed by a writer who signs himself ‘Elvaeliad.’ He says:
“In the parish of Bolton-le- Moors is a hill named Turton Heights, and on the south-east end of it is a large sheep pasture, which goes by the name of Chetham’s Close. Nearly on the summit of this close, but inclining to the north-east, are the remains of a bardic temple, the diameter of which is about seventeen yards. There are only six stones of the circle remaining, and these are sorely mutilated either by time or the hand of man. The circle is as perfect as if traced by the compasses of Newton or La Place; and, what is rather singular, an upright stone stands about thirty-seven yards nearly east from its outward verge and another about seventeen yards due south. The ‘maen gorsedd’ has disappeared as well as some other stones forming the circle, and, from the oozy nature of the ground, I am inclined to believe that independent of the mutilations mentioned, the surface of the earth has risen considerably since the circle was first constructed. The views to the north and east are very fine, but bounded by hills rising and swelling above each other. Towards the south and south-east are seen Bolton and Manchester, with their busy populations; a considerable part of fertile Cheshire, Mow Hill in Staffordshire, and lofty ranges of mountains both in Derbyshire and Yorkshire; and were it not for Edgar¹ or Winter Hill on the west Penmaenmawr frowning upon the sea, Moel y Vammeau, and the bicapitated head of Snowdon would be distinctly visible on a clear day.
“Frequently have I visited this interesting spot, and, amidst the silence and solitude which reign there, thought of ‘the days of former years.’ Here have the bards in their different orders often met and performed their various rites and mysteries, with their uni-coloured robes flowing before the breeze. Here have hundreds, probably thousands, standing without the circle observed the solemn proceedings, and listened with deep attention to the maxims and doctrines which philosophers and Druids delivered. Since those periods, what changes, what revolutions have taken place! How often has the blue lightning flashed and the thunder rolled over this sacred spot! Kingdoms have risen and fallen, emperors have been throned and dethroned, arts and sciences have retrograded and advanced, and various and awful occurrences have taken place; but these rude stones, though severely shattered, still remain as attestations of the religious and philosophical views of the ancient Briton. But where are the founders of this monument and those who worshipped there ? The sages who often proclaimed within this circle,
‘Y gwir yn erbyn y byd,’ are gone the way of all flesh. “Our fathers, where are they? The prophets, do they live for ever?”
“About a mile and a half from this bardic temple a neighbour and friend of mine, whilst digging a drain, about twenty years ago (1819), discovered the head of an old British standard, which is now in my possession. It is of copper, the head of which is shaped like an axe, and the other end has a double groove in which the flagstaff entered, and, by that means, became firmly fixed. Its weight is fourteen ounces and a half, but was evidently heavier when perfect, as the ring on its side through which the cord of the flag ran is broken off, and the lower end of the groove has been also mutilated. Its figure, though not an exact one, may be seen in Gough’s edition of Camden’s Britannia, vol. ii., p. 501, pi. xviii., figure 13. From traces still remaining it is evident that a Roman road passed within two hundred yards where this relic was found. Now, my opinion is that the Romans and Britons met there in hostile array, and with their flags unfurled; that in the action which took place the Roman soldiers, for soldiers are ever the same, dashed at the British flag and cut it down, and that, owing to the tumult, the confusion, and the boggy nature of the ground, the standard head was broken off, sunk into the earth, and was lost.” (This account was then signed ‘Elvaeliad’, August 11th, 1829.)
Thus ends this chronicler, and his testimony is useful as corroborating that of subsequent generations.
In 1871 Mr. Thomas Greenhalgh, of Thornydikes, Bolton, prepared the following account of the circle, which was read before the British Archaeological Association, on June I4th of that year, and is published in the twenty-seventh volume of the transactions of that society:
“The township of Turton, like many others in southwest Lancashire, is largely occupied by lofty moorland hills the home of the grouse and the lapwing. Amongst these wilds is a range of high ground standing more distinct from the other moors than is usual with hills of this nature. The range is divided into two parts by a slight depression. That portion to the north is named Turton Heights, and is stated by the Ordnance Survey to be one thousand one hundred feet above the sea. The southern half is known as Chetham Close, from its having been the property of that old Lancashire worthy, Humphrey Chetham. This part is twenty-five feet lower than Turton Heights, and the depression spoken of above sinks about thirty feet lower still. The summit of each is a sort of table-land, sloping gently towards the depression just named, and extending both together about a mile from north to south by a quarter of a mile from east to west.
“Nearly in the centre of the northerly slope of Chetham Close and at an elevation of one thousand and sixty feet stand several stones of a Druidical circle. This circle, I should judge, originally consisted of eleven stones. Of these seven are still standing in a more or less perfect state. The diameter of the circle is small, being only fifty-one feet six inches. So the stones are, as might be expected, small likewise. The tallest is fifty-five inches by eighteen inches wide, and the shortest (number four) eight inches only in height. At the distance of forty-five feet, south-west from the outside of the circle, stands a solitary stone, nineteen inches high by ten inches wide, and southsouth-east at a distance of one hundred and two feet another stone, thirty-five inches high by seventeen inches wide. The stones vary in thickness from nine inches to fifteen inches.
“The position of the stones is circular, with vacant spots, and their dimensions and shapes vary. The table-land gradually rises from the circle in a southsouth-east direction and a short distance past the outlying stone a height of one thousand and seventy-five feet is attained, and a quarter of a mile further on a view is to be got, with a clear atmosphere, which towards the south is bounded only by the powers of vision. From this spot the ancient people who erected the circle must have often gazed on a scene which persons now familiar with south Lancashire would find it impossible to realise. The valleys and even the sides of the hills were clothed with trees, the oak and birch predominating, whilst the margins of the numerous streams and swamps were overhung by the alder; the wild boar and doubtless the wolf roamed in the woods, and smaller game abounded in the more open parts. The numerous waters throughout the district would be alive with fish, amongst which the salmon might be numbered; for when the country was better wooded and entirely uncultivated the large rainfall of the district (now about a mean of fifty-five inches) would be still more copious, and keep the streams full of water.
“The last few centuries have, however, wrought a wonderful change in the scene, which has been the most rapid since the introduction of machinery into the country; and from the same spot may now be seen the habitations, comprised in towns, villages, and farmhouses, of hundreds of thousands of human beings. Unfortunately, however, there are still to be found amongst us persons as barbarous in some respects as the rude people who erected the circle. These were rude in their ideas of building; the others barbarous in wantonly destroying that which time had made more interesting than the palaces of kings. Up to the spring of last year the circle appeared to have suffered little for ages; but at that time rambling over the moors I turned aside to take another look at the circle. Not that I thought of anything having happened, but for old acquaintance sake; when to my surprise I noticed a framework of wood within the circle, and upon reaching the spot itself what my disgust and astonishment were may be easily imagined, when I found two of the stones broken almost to fragments, and several others damaged. This could only have been effected by the aid of a heavy hammer, as the stories broken were before strong and sound. Fortunately, they were not rooted up so their places are still seen in the group. One very small one has apparently been in the state it now is for a long time.
“I at once communicated my unpleasant discovery to the owner of the land, James Kay, Esq., of Turton Tower, who instituted an enquiry, and traced it to some members of a picnic party, who had made use of the ground without asking leave. A few more such wanton pieces of mischief, and this interesting relic, like many others of its class, will be irrecoverably destroyed.
“About a mile from the circle, north-west from it and on a much lower level, eight hundred and ninety feet above the sea, is a flat piece of bog, called ‘Charter’s Moss.’ Here was found, about 1810, a bronze British celt. It was discovered by a man whilst digging turf, as I am told, at four feet from the surface. Having taken a careful drawing of it, I found, upon comparing it with similar objects in the British Museum, that in cases Nos.13 to 20, ‘British Antiquities Department,’ there were several closely resembling it, and one [No.315 Z] the all but exact representation of it. The Rev. Probert, in whose possession it had been for nearly half a century, and who resided a few hundred yards from the spot where it was dug up, died recently (then 1871), and bequeathed it to New College,² Gordon Square, London.”
I have no doubt that the British celt referred to in this account by Mr. Greenhalgh is the same as that mentioned in the previous description by ‘Elvaeliad,’ and I conjecture that this is the nom de guerre of the same Rev. William Probert referred to, who was a literary man, and the author of Ancient Laws of Cambria (1823) and other works. I am glad to say that this celt was kindly given up by the authorities of Manchester New College, and has been placed in the Chadwick Museum, Bolton. It is also interesting to note that a similar specimen was found in a quarry on Cockey Moor, near Ainsworth, about three miles from and in view of the circle, by Dr. Denham, about 1839. It is still in the possession of his family.
Mr. Matthew Dawes, of Bolton, also wrote a description of the circle, which was read before the Historic Society, in 1852. He says: “I accompanied Sir Henry Dryden to visit these remains in 1850. At that time there remained six stones upright, varying in height from one foot six inches to four feet, and in thickness from eleven inches to two feet. Judging from the relative distances of those remaining three stones have been taken away. At one hundred and fifteen feet south-east from the circle is a single stone and at eighty-two feet south-west is another, and between these two stones is an assemblage of smaller stones only just appearing out of the boggy soil.”
It has long been supposed that this circle of upright stones was the only one on the site; indeed, the late Mr. Scholes, in his recently published History of Bolton (1892, p.11), says only one circle is known about Bolton.
The adjacent ‘cairn circle’, in 1894
In June of last year, in company with Mr. Thomas Hardcastle, I visited the site, and noticed what was evidently another circle. This we perceived from the stones cropping up in places and from the nature of the turf. I find that the same opinion was formed by a member of the Manchester Literary Club (the late Mr. E. Kirk), who, in a paper read before the club, in November, 1878, says: “There are two circles, the more northerly formed of large individual stones, set diadem or corona fashion, the other of smaller stones, as if it had been a walled enclosure with a pile in the centre.” This observation is quite correct, and a removal of the surface of the earth last June to a depth of three to six inches revealed a perfect stone-walled circle, as shown in the illustration. This circle is larger than the upright one, being exactly twenty-four yards across (the size of similar stone circles, ex. gr., the circle at Zennor, Cornwall). It lies to the south-west of the upright circle and is twenty yards from the outlying westerly stone of same, and is twelve yards from the outlying southerly stone of same, and is on slightly higher ground than the first circle. The circle is faced on both inside and outside by large flat stones, and the space within is occupied by smaller stones. I can find no trace of mortar nor marks of tools, nor do I find any gateway or opening to the circle, although the whole of it has not yet been laid bare. The circling wall is of an average width or thickness of four feet. The stones are the ordinary grit stone of the district. The removal of part of the earth within the circle has shown a number of stones lying there and there is also a large collection in the exact centre. It is most symmetrically round, and the wall is very evenly and regularly constructed.
I think there is no doubt but that it is of later date than the upright circle and may have been subsequently used as a place of worship.
Possibly it may, in accordance with the theory of Dr. Colley March, have been a place for mortuary exposure before subsequent sepulture, and it is interesting to note that the Three Lowes in the valley below and about half a mile away are reputed Barrows. No bones or remains of any sort have yet been found, but so far only the upper surface lies exposed. Its situation and shape preclude the idea of its being a sheep-fold, and from its dimensions it is not likely to have been a watch tower or a “burgh.” Possibly it may be the site of a collection of ancient British dwellings, clustered together, and defended by the enclosing wall. The owner, Mr. Hardcastle, intends to make careful excavations, and from these some further information and enlightenment will probably be thrown upon the origin of what is undoubtedly a most interesting and important archaeological discovery.
Notes:
1. This is evidently the origin of the name of the adjacent township, “Egerton.” I have seen the place, “Edgar’s town,” marked in (fifteenth century) Lancashire maps.
2. Now the Manchester College, Oxford (Unitarian).
Stone Circle (destroyed): OS Grid Reference – NT 641 240
Archaeology & History
Mentioned briefly by Burl (2000), this site is another of the countless megalithic monuments in our islands that has been destroyed. References to it are few and far between, though the site was investigated by members of Scottish Royal Commission in March, 1947, and found absolutely no remains left. In the first volume of their Roxburgh (1956) survey, they told:
“The stone circle that stood in the vicinity of Harestones Cottages had been reduced to a single stone by 1845, and this stone has since disappeared. No details of the circle are recorded and the evidence for its exact position is contradictory. Stobie’s Map of Roxburghshire (1770) marks the site a little to the NE of Harestones Cottages, while an estate map of 1795 is said to have placed it at the SW corner of this group of buildings.”
There is the distinct possibility of course that there once stood two independent ancient monuments in the vicinity, which would account for descriptions in the different site locations.
References:
Burl, Aubrey, The Stone Circles of Britain, Ireland and Brittany, Yale University Press 2000.
Royal Commission on the Ancient & Historical Monuments of Scotland, Roxburghshire – volume 1, HMSO: Edinburgh 1956.
Watson, G., “The Stone Circles of Roxburghshire,” in Transactions of the Hawick Archaeological Society, volume 20, 1908.
Get to the Twelve Apostles stone circle, then walk just 100 yards down the main footpath south, towards Bingley, and watch out for a small footpath immediately to your left. Walk on here and head for the rocky outcrop a half-mile ahead of you. Once past the outcrop, take the first footpath right and walk down for another 100 yards. Stop! – and walk into the heather. The circle’s about 50 yards away! You can of course come from the Menston side of the moor, following the same directions for the Great Skirtful of Stones, but keep walking on for another 200 yards, towards the rocky outcrop again, turning left down the path for 100 yards, before stopping and walking 50 yards into the heath again!
Archaeology & History
Roms Law circle
This is one of my favourite sites on these moors. I’m not 100% sure why – but there’s always been something a bit odd about the place. And I don’t quite know what I mean, exactly, when I say “odd.” There’s just something about it… But it’s probably just me. Though I assume that me sleeping rough here numerous times in the past might have summat to do with it, playing with the lizards, and of course…the sheep… AHEM!!! Soz about that – let’s just get back to what’s known about the place!
Grubstones is an intriguing place and, I recommend, recovers its original name of Roms or Rums Law. It was described as such in the earliest records and only seems to have acquired the title ‘Grubstones’ following the Ordnance Survey assessment in the 1850s. The name derives from two compound words, rum, ‘room, space, an open space, a clearing’; and hlaw, a ‘tumulus, or hill’ – literally meaning here the ‘clearing or place of the dead,’ or variations thereof. But an additional variant on the word law also needs consideration here, as it can also be used to mean a ‘moot or meeting place’; and considering that local folklore, aswell as local boundary records tell of this site being one of the gathering places, here is the distinct possibility of it possessing another meaning: literally, ‘a meeting place of the dead’, or variations on this theme.
The present title of Grubstones was a mistranslation of local dialect by the Ordnance Survey recorders, misconstruing the guttural speaking of Rum stones as ‘grub stones.’ If you wanna try it yourself, talk in old Yorkshire tone, then imagine some Oxford or London dood coming along and asking us the name of the ring of stones! It works – believe me….
The site has little visual appeal, almost always overgrown with heather, but its history is considerable for such a small and insignificant-looking site. First described in land records of 1273 CE, Roms Law was one of the sites listed in the local boundary perambulations records which was enacted each year on Rogation Day (movable feast day in Spring). However in 1733 there was a local boundary dispute which, despite the evidence of written history, proclaimed the Roms Law circle to be beyond the manor of Hawksworth, in which it had always resided. But the boundary was changed – and local people thenceforth made their way to the Great Skirtful of Stones on their annual ritual walk: a giant cairn several hundred yards east to which, archaeologically, there is some considerable relationship. For at the northern edge of the Roms Law circle is the denuded remnants of a prehistoric trackway in parts marked out with fallen standing stones and which leads to the very edge of the great cairn. This trackway or avenue, like that at Avebury (though not as big), consists of “male” and “female” stones and begins – as far as modern observations can tell – several hundred yards to the west, close to a peculiar morass of rocks and a seeming man-made embankment (which I can’t make head or tail of it!). From here it goes past Roms Law and continues east towards the Great Skirtful, until it veers slightly round the southern side of the huge old tomb, then keeps going eastwards again into the remnants of a prehistoric graveyard close by.
In my opinion, it is very likely that this trackway was an avenue along which our ancestors carried their dead. Equally probable, the Roms Law Circle was where the body of the deceased was rested, or a ritual of some form occurred, before taken on its way to wherever. It seems very probable that this avenue had a ceremonial aspect of some form attached to it. However, due to the lack of decent archaeological attention, this assertion is difficult to prove.
A previously unrecognised small single tomb is in evidence to the immediate southeast (5 yards) of the circle. There is also another previously unrecognised prehistoric trackway that runs up along the eastern side of the circle, roughly north-south, making its way here from Hawksworth Moor to the south. The old legend that Roms Law was a meeting place may relate to it being a site where the dead were rested, along with it being an important point along the old boundary line. Records tell us that the chant, “This is Rumbles Law” occurred here at the end of the perambulation – which, after the boundary change, was uttered at the Great Skirtful. This continued till at least 1901.
Northern section of the Ring
Modern archaeological analysis of the site is undecided as regards the actual nature of Roms Law. Ordnance Survey maps show it as an “enclosure” (which is vague); Faull & Moorhouse’s survey (1981) erroneously tell us it had no funerary nature, contrary to Eric Cowling’s (1946) report of finding bones and ashes from the small hole in near the centre of the ring, aswell as the 1880 drawing of the site in Collyer & Turner’s survey (above). And we find the single cairn on the south-eastern edge of the ring indicating burial rites of sorts definitely occurred here. Described variously by previous archaeologists as a stone circle, a ring cairn, cairn circle, an enclosure, aswell as “a rubble-fill wall of a circular house” (by some anonymous member of the West Yorkshire Archaeology Service, who didn’t respond to my queries about this curious assumption), the real nature of Roms Law leans more to a cairn circle site. A fine example of a cup-and-ring stone — the Comet Stone — was found very close to the circle, somewhere along the Grubstones Ridge more than a hundred years ago, and it may have had some relevance to Roms Law.
This denuded ring of stones is a place that has to be seen quite blatantly in a much wider context, with other outlying sites having considerable relationship to it. Simple as! (If you wanna know more about this, check out my short work, Roms Law, due out shortly!)
Describing the status and dimensions here, our great Yorkshire historian Arthur Raistrick (1929) told that:
“The larger stones still standing number about twenty, but the spaces between them are filled with stones of many intermediate sizes, so that one could with only considerable detail of size, etc, number the original peristalith.”
…Meaning that we’re unsure exactly how many stones stood in the ring when it was first built! Although a little wider, the Roms Law is similar in form to the newly discovered ‘Hazell Circle‘ not far from here. The site has changed little since Raistrick’s survey, though some halfwits nicked some of the stones on the southwestern edge of the site in the 1960s to build a stupid effing grouse-butt, from which to shoot the birds up here! (would the local council or local archaeologist have been consulted about such destruction by building the grouse-butt here? – anyone know?) Thankfully, this has all but disappeared and the moorland has taken it back to Earth.
There is still a lot more to be told of Roms Law and its relationship with a number of uncatalogued sites scattered hereby. Although it’s only a small scruffy-looking thing (a bit like misself!), its archaeology and mythic history is very rich indeed. “Watch This Space” – as they say!
Folklore
Alleged to be haunted, this site has been used by authentic ritual magickians in bygone years. It was described by Collyer & Turner (1885) “to have been a Council or Moot Assembly place” — and we find this confirmed to a great extent via the township perambulation records. Considerable evidence points to an early masonic group convening here in medieval times and we are certain from historical records that members of the legendary Grand Lodge of All England (said to be ordained in the tenth century by King Athelstan) met here, or at the adjacent Great Skirtful of Stones giant cairn 400 yards east.
The boundary perambulations which occurred here on Rogation Day relate to events just before or around Beltane, Mayday. Elizabeth Wright (1913) said of this date:
“These days are marked in the popular mind by the ancient and well-known custom of beating the parish bounds, whence arose the now obsolete name of Gang-days, and the name Rammalation-day, i.e., perambulation-day, for Rogation-Monday. The practice is also called Processioning and Possessioning… The reason why this perambulation of the parish boundaries takes place at Rogationtide seems to be that originally it was a purely religious observance, a procession of priest and people through the fields to pray for a fruitful Spring-time and harvest. In the course of time the secular object of familiarizing the growing generation with their parish landmarks gained the upper hand, but the date remained as testimony to the primary devotional character of the custom.”
And the calling of, “This is Rumbles Law” maintained this ancient custom when it used to be uttered here.
All sorts of ways to get here – all via road I’m afraid. Those southern-types aint into walking over fields and ambling about like we can do ‘ere up North. Best way to get here really, is get to Chipping Norton (a good little town with many good folk there), and ask! Take the road out of the town to Over Norton, taking the first road left as you enter the village. Go along this country lane for a mile until you reach a crossroads at the top of the hill. Turn right at the crossroads and watch out for the parking space at the roadside a few hundred yards along. Stop there and walk through the gate to go round to the other side of the trees. (if there’s a Rollright Trust member there loitering in the entrance asking you for some money to walk or sit by the stone circle – don’t give ’em it! They’ve used the cash for poisoning the wildlife in the past (killing the moles, field mice and other indigenous creatures there) and then lied about what they did (reckoning it was nowt to do with them!), so I wouldn’t trust them).
Archaeology & History
Southern arc of stones
There’s masses to be said on this site, which I can’t add all in one go (I’ve literally got a full unpublished book on the many aspects if this lovely site) — so this entry will be updated occasionally with additional bits and bats of info and images as time floats by.
This remarkable and quite atmospheric megalithic complex has so much to say for itself that entire books have been written on the place (see the extensive references below), dealing with its archaeology, folklore and ritual use.
1920s Ground-planMr Taunt’s 1907 plan
The King’s Men is a near-perfect circle of oolitic limestone uprights. Thought for centuries to be the memorial site of some victory by the Danish King Rollo, they have been described by many historians, travellers and antiquarians from the 14th century upwards. Several early writers described a sort of “avenue” running from the circle, not unlike the one perceived at Stonehenge and elsewhere. Evidence for this cannot be fully disregarded, as there are some recumbent monoliths along the road beside the stone complex, known as the Jurassic Way. This was a prehistoric trade route and it is more likely than not that some other uprights would have been nearby.
The Rollright Stones were used as the prime base for what was known as the Dragon Project: an exploratory examination of potential electromagnetic anomalies that were recorded at the standing stones here by scientists, geomancers and archaeologists who were involved daily monitoring work over many years. Much of this was published in Paul Devereux’s book, Places of Power – required reading for everyone who pretends an interest in megalithic sciences.
Northern section of the ring
The Rollright complex today consists primarily of three sites: the Whispering Knight’s portal dolmen, the King’s Men stone circle, and the King Stone. Of these, it is the stone circle which draws most attention. Several alignments are connected with the complex. The original ritual use of the place would have, primarily, involved rites of passage and death rituals; though it seems obvious that menstrual rites were also an important social event here. After dark, this stone circle has distinctly ‘female’ spirit, sometimes manifesting in a quite wrathful form (please don’t confuse any of the modern witchcraft mythos with such things – they are fundamentally different in both social and ritual aspects). Women obviously played a large part in the ritual use and geomantic layout of the original complex. It also seems likely that the stone circle was used as a moot spot, which may have been in use until medieval times. The recent discovery of the carving of a family crest, at least 500 years old, implies this.
Until Tom Wilson and I lived in the hut at the circle in the 1990s, previous reports of ‘carvings’ at the stone circle were few and debatable. But two of the stones in the Rollright circle have quite distinct carvings on them. The most pronounced is etched on the tallest stone (stone 1 – Barnatt Survey) and comprises of a typical heraldic shield – although we cannot, as yet, ascertain the motif in the middle of the shield. This was first seen by a visiting tourist who wanted to remain anonymous, but the finding was written up in an article I wrote shortly afterwards. (Bennett 1999) The image below – reproduced courtesy of Alistair Carty’s Archaeoptics Limited laser scanning company – clearly shows the carving, which confirmed the initial discovery. The report of his findings can be read here.
Not unsurprisingly, since the discovery of the shield various screwy interpretations have been put forward to account for the design. My favourite has to be the one suggested by a pagan friend of the Rollright Trust, who, occult-like and all secret (y’ get the drift) reckoned it was all to do with King Arthur! Needless to say, my response of, “Y’ talking bollox mate!” was received somewhat nervously by pagan Karin Attwood and the twee little entourage who were discussing the shield, in the usual ‘secrecy – secrecy’ hush-hush tone of false witches and similar idiots!
A few months later I found another set of carvings on stone 62 (Barnatt survey), comprising a set of Ogham letters. These Ogham are very faint and are best observed before midday, when lighting conditions highlight them much clearer. If anyone can decipher them, it would be greatly appreciated. (though please don’t gimme some shit about King Arthur)
Folklore
Folklore ascribes that the number of stones in the complex cannot be counted (a motif found at other megalithic sites) and, intriguingly, of the surveys done here, no two are the same! One early illustration of the circle shows 30 stones, nother describes 46, and one survey describes just 22 stones! As the 20th century progressed the numbers increased dramatically, with surveys differing at 58, 60, 71, 72, 73, 77 and 105. The present-day ‘guesstimate’ is about 77. Weird!
Folklore tells that if you can count the stones three times in a row and get the same number, you may have any wish you choose. But recently this has become reversed and it is said to be a curse if you count three times the same. Intriguingly, modern visitors who allege no superstitious beliefs, will not count the stones a third time if the same number crops up twice.
The best-known folk tale of this place is of the King, his men and the knights, who “were once men who were changed into vast rocks and fossilised,” as Camden first put it in 1586. The King’s men sometimes go to drink at a well near Little Rollright, as does the king, but he only goes at certain times. At midnight however, on certain days, the King’s Men have sometimes been known to come to life, join hands and dance in a circle. This sounds more like a folk remnant of ritual use here.
Faerie folk are said to live beneath the circle, in great caverns, some of which are linked up to the single monolith across the road. Ravenhill [1926] described how local folk had sometimes seen the little people dancing around the circle by moonlight, but nobody has seen them of late.
…to be continued…!
References:
Anonymous, The Rollright Stones: Theories and Legends, privately printed, n.d.
Anonymous, ‘Oxfordshire Mysteries,’ in The Ley Hunter 86, 1979.
Aubrey, John, Monumenta Britannica, Milbourne Port 1980.
Barnatt, John, Stone Circles of Britain (2 volumes), BAR: Oxford 1989.
Bennett, Paul, ‘Remarkable Carving found at the King’s Men Stone Circle, Rollright, Oxfordshire,’ in Right Times 5, 1999.
Bennett, Paul & Wilson, Tom, The Old Stones of Rollright and District, Cockley Press: London 1999.
Bloxham, Christine, Folklore of Oxfordshire, Tempus 2005.
Bord, Janet & Colin, The Secret Country, Paul Elek: London 1976.
Bord, Janet & Colin, A Guide to Ancient Sites in Britain, Paladin 1979.
Brooker, Charles, ‘Magnetism and the Standing Stones,’ in New Scientist, January 1983.
Burl, Aubrey, A Guide to the Stone Circles of Britain, Ireland and Brittany, New Haven & London 1995.
Burl, Aubrey, Great Stone Circles, Yale University Press: New York & London 1999.
Burl, Aubrey, The Stone Circles of Britain, Ireland and Brittany, Yale University Press 2000.
Clayton, Peter, Archaeological Sites of Britain, Weidenfeld & Nicolson: London 1976.
Cooper, Roy, ‘Some Oxfordshire Leys,’ in The Ley Hunter 86, 1979.
Cowper, B.H., ‘Oxfordshire Legend in Stone,’ Notes & Queries (1st series), 7, January 15, 1853.
Crawford, O.G.S., Long Barrows of the Cotswolds, John Bellows: Oxford 1932.
D., A.J., ‘Rollwright or Rollright,’ in Notes & Queries, 2nd series, 7, 1859.
Devereux, Paul, ‘Is This the Image of the Earth Force?’ in The Ley Hunter 87, 1979.
Devereux, Paul, ‘Operation Merlin,’ in The Ley Hunter 88, 1980.
Devereux, Paul, ‘Operation Merlin 2,’ in The Ley Hunter 89, 1980.
Devereux, Paul, ‘The Third Merlin,’ in The Ley Hunter 92, 1981.
Devereux, Paul, Places of Power, Blandford: London 1990.
Devereux, Paul, The Sacred Place, Cassell: London 2000.
Devereux, Paul, Steele, John & Kubrin, David, Earthmind, Harper & Row: New York 1989.
Devereux, Paul & Thomson, Ian, The Ley Hunter’s Companion, Thames & Hudson: London 1979.
Dyer, James, Discovering Regional Archaeology: The Cotswolds and the Upper Thames, Shire: Tring 1970.
Evans, Arthur J., ‘The Rollright Stones,’ in Trans. Bristol & Glouc. Arch. Soc., 40, 1892.
Evans, Arthur J., ‘The Rollright Stones and their Folklore (3 parts),’ in Folklore Journal, 1895.
Graves, Tom, Dowsing, Techniques and Application, Turnstone: London 1976.
Graves, Tom, Needles of Stone, Granada: London 1980.
Graves, Tom (ed.), Dowsing and Archaeology, Turnstone: Wellingborough 1980.
Gray, William, The Rollright Ritual, Helios: Cheltenham 1975.
Grinsell, Leslie V., The Ancient Burial Mounds of England, Methuen: London 1936.
Grinsell, Leslie V., The Rollright Stones and their Folklore, Toucan Press: Guernsey 1977.
Hamper, W., ‘Observations on certain Ancient Pillars of Memorial, called Hoar Stones,’ in Archaeologia, 25, 1833.
Hawkes, Jacquetta, A Guide to the Prehistoric and Roman Monuments in England and Wales, BCA: London 1973.
Higgins, Geoffrey, The Celtic Druids, Rowland Hunter: London 1829.
Krupp, E.C., In Search of Ancient Astronomies, Chatto & Windus: London 1979.
Lambrick, George, The Rollright Stones: The Archaeology and Folklore of the Stones and their Surroundings, Oxford Archaeology Review 1983. (Reprinted and updated in 1988.)
Sadly gone, there have been several literary reports of this once fine megalithic ring. It was to be seen “on the right hand side of the main roadway from Edinburgh to Carlops, as it approaches the farm of Marchwell.” When the site was described by the Scottish Royal Commission in 1929, some of the stones were apparently still standing. They described it as occupying a site “at an elevation of between 800 and 900 feet above sea-level,” but told that the main reason for its destruction appeared “that it was broken up by the making of the highway, which cuts the knoll on its east side.” They continued:
“Two of the stones, showing a height of about 15 inches above ground, remain in their original positions, while five others lying in close proximity are probably units that have been moved. These five blocks, which are not earth-fast, are of similar character to the two remaining in situ, and all seven, judging from their basaltic character, appear to have been brought from a distance.”
A brief account of the circle in the 1845 New Statistical Account description of the Glencorse parish told that the site was 40 feet in diameter. In 1941, two fragments of a food vessel were found in close proximity to where the circle had been; and in a visit here in 1970 by members of Ordnance Survey, two possible monoliths were reported in the walling which they thought might have originally come from the stone circle. Unfortunately I’ve not been able to locate any early drawings or photos of the site – yet!
References:
Royal Commission on the Ancient & Historical Monuments & Constructions of Scotland, Midlothian and West Lothian, HMSO: Edinburgh 1929.
Stone Circle (destroyed): OS Grid Reference – SE 0898 4393
Also known as:
Bradup Bridge
Brass Castle
Kirkstones Circle
Archaeology & History
Lay-out of the site, c.1929 (after Raistrick)
Not far from the little-known site of Beacon Hill, this once important megalithic ring was described by Arthur Raistrick in 1929 as “the finest stone circle” in West Yorkshire. Sadly however, the complete destruction of the place in recent years has now left us with nothing to go by (you would think such actions were illegal, but we’ll come to that shortly).
The site measured thirty feet across and, until only a few years back, had a distinct embankment surrounding it. In 1885 Robert Collyer described 18 stones here; but in Raistrick’s (1929) survey only 12 were visible. He told:
“The circle is situated on the west side of the Keighley to Ilkley road, in the rough pasture called ‘Brass Castle’…immediately south and west of Bradup Bridge. The circle is approximately 30 feet diameter, but has been very damaged at some period since 1885. At that date 18 stones were standing, but now only 12 remain, though there are large unfilled holes on the sites from which the other stones have been removed. There are slight traces of a bank, but the most notable feature is the large size of the stones (millstone grit from the neighbouring escarpment) of which the circle has been made. There are some traces of a double circle, but it is not possible to be sure of this now. It seems certain that the stones were removed from this circle to repair the neighbouring Bradup Bridge, an act of vandalism always to be deplored… There is no appearance of this circle having been used for interment, nor any record extant of exploration.”
When Eric Cowling (1946) visited the site in the 1930s, his notes indicate that it was much as Raistrick had described a few years prior, telling:
“This circle is situated at the west side of the Keighley-Ilkley road near Bradup Bridge on the Airedale side of Rombalds Moor, near the crest. Only twelve stones remain standing; these are large and apparently obtained from the nearby escarpment (Kirkstones, PB); holes mark the site of stones removed. The ring is thirty feet in diameter with some traces of a circular bank; the position of some stones suggests that the circle may have been continuous. I have heard this place referred to as ‘Kirkstones’ and ‘Brass Castle’, both suggestive names.”
A newspaper account of the site in 1960 reported that 12 stones were still in situ and that “there are large holes from which the other stones have been removed.” This fact was echoed by a local walker, Ken Pickles, who knew the site well and said:
“I first walked this moor in 1945,” he says. “In the late 1960s there were definitely 12 there. It was a perfect stone circle. It offends me that children should be denied things like this.”
As if to affirm the status and number of stones again, when archaeologist Ian Longworth (1965) wrote about it he told that,
“Twelve stones remain in this badly damaged circle, which measures about 30 feet across. The stones are of local millstone grit. Several seem to have been removed from the site to repair Bradup Bridge.”
Sid Jackson’s old drawing
By 1995 only one stone was in situ, but a very distinct, albeit low circular embankment was still in evidence. I sat here quite a few times when I was young, munching mi sarnies, having a rest, alone and with friends (once in the company of holy wells author Edna Whelan and fellow rock art researcher and author Graeme Chappell) before journeying back home. It looked that at least one other stone was buried just beneath the grassy surface on the northeastern side of the banking.
Bradup is included in the respective archaeological magnum opuses of both Burl (2000) and Barnatt (1989); where the latter visited the site in the 1980s and thought it may have been “the last vestiges of a cairn.”
Arthur Raistrick’s (1929) plan shows that at least two stones stood near the centre of the circle, which may have related to a solstice sunrise alignment with the old standing stone at nearby Black Knoll hill on Morton Moor (replaced at an unknown date in the past by a stone cross). And when Mr Raistrick told this to be the best stone circle in the region, he knew what he talking about! He had surveyed many other prehistoric remains and was the leading archaeological authority in the region at the time. Today, we have no such professional authority in the region who is worthy of such an accolade. The sorry series of events that led to the destruction of Bradup’s stone circle took a little time to emerge, but after a series of emails to various departments several years ago, the culpability seemed to spread across several people, each of whom made simple mistakes; but these were mistakes that have led directly to Bradup’s demise. I hope some of you will forgive me telling its story…
Bradup stones removed & dumped near wallBradup stone remains dumped in a pile
I first received an email from a colleague in 2002 asking whether or not I was aware of what seemed to be the final destruction of the Bradup stone circle, as the land-owner from Upwood Farm had been over the field and uprooted some buried stones — plus the last visible upright in the ring — and moved them into a pile at the top southern-end of the field in which the circle previously stood. So a small bunch of us went over to have a look and, much to our horror, found the report to be true. The field itself had been completely levelled and the circular embankment flattened, with the upright stone and any buried ones dragged and dropped into the pile of stones that obviously constituted the megalithic structure we’d sat within and visited so many times down the years up against the wall at the top of the field. Someone — the land-owner it seemed — quite recently in early 2002, had destroyed the Bradup stone circle.
How the hell had this happened…!? So, I contacted those who were supposed to look after the welfare of such monuments.
In 2006, Pippa Pemberton was the person working for English Heritage who had the stately title of ‘Field Monument Warden for West Yorkshire’ and elsewhere — and it was Pippa who told the sorry tale, albeit through the well-disguised erudition of avoiding blame to anyone. Amongst several allegedly ‘professional’ archaeologists who I emailed, it was one to Neil Redfern that was responded to, eventually. As you’ll read below, my email asks how this stone circle had been destroyed, with the lengthy ‘explanation’ giving the official reasoning:
Bradup Stone Circle Destroyed
From: Paul Bennett Sent: 10 March 2006 14:05 To: REDFERN, Neil Subject: Stone circle destroyed nr Ilkley
Hello there!
I sent you an email quite a long time ago (below) concerning the complete destruction of Bradup stone circle on Ilkley Moor, for which I have heard nothing since. I wonder, out of respect, if you could either let me know the circumstances surrounding my query, or perhaps pass me on to the relevant person:
“Out of interest (and on the same moorland region) I wonder if you could let me know who it was from English Heritage who de-scheduled a site once known as the Bradup stone circle (also known as Kirk Stones) after a visit to the place a few years ago? (SE 0897 4393) The incorrect site/location was examined and the real stone circle, close by, was subsequently destroyed by the adjacent land-owner. Evidence of the destruction is still there at the top of the field in the form of a few oddly-piled small boulders.
“I think it important that whoever de-scheduled this site should be taken to task for their error. (I don’t mean sack the poor soul, although it’s evident that some re-training is probably in order.) or perhaps the land-owner taken to task for the destruction of the site.
“I would be interested to hear what you, or one of your fellow workers, think about what’s happened here.
Best wishes – Paul Bennett”
Sometime later, I received the following response:
“Dear Paul
Your email was passed on to me by Neil Redfern, as I am currently the person dealing with scheduled monuments in West Yorkshire. Please accept my apologies for the delay in responding to you – we have been working with Heritage Action on this issue, and it was accidentally assumed that you were associated with that organisation too.
In response to your query I have copied an extract from a recent letter I sent to Heritage Action about Bradup, outlining the history of the case and the justification for its descheduling. I hope that this text answers your concerns. For your information, should you require any further assistance with this case, I recommend that you return to me quickly as I am due to start maternity leave at Easter and we do not yet know who will be dealing with this casework in my absence.
With best wishes
Pippa Pemberton,
English Heritage Yorkshire Region, Field Monument Warden – West Yorkshire & Districts of Scarborough & Ryedale.
Scheduling and location of the Bradup site
Scheduled Monuments are currently provided statutory protection under the 1979 Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act, which replaced earlier legislation and is itself currently under review by the government (DCMS) in their Heritage Protection Review. Scheduled Monuments are a land-based designation, which means that they are fixed in space, with defined boundaries within which specific protection applies. The legally protected location of a Scheduled Monument is recorded on maps and described in associated documentation. Together these documents provide the legal record of the site and are the basis on which protection is applied.
Our records show that a site at Bradup was scheduled as a stone circle in 1933 at grid reference SE 0895 4391, based on information provided by a partial survey of the site made by Dr A Raistrick in 1920 and on reports recorded in 1885. This site was known by the name of Bradup Stone Circle. The location of this site is shown on the map attached to this email.
Subsequently the Ordnance Survey visited the site in 1961, when R Emsley undertook a measured survey of the locations of the stones and hollows included within the scheduled site. However he noted that the stones appeared, by that stage, to be haphazard in their distribution and he appears to have been unconvinced by the description of the site as a stone circle. On the basis of this visit by Emsley, the Bradup stone circle was marked on the 6” Ordnance Survey map, with the location given by Emsley as SE 0895 4392. In addition, Emsley noted that the unscheduled site known as ‘Kirkstones’ was located nearby at SE 0907 4479, but did not describe this site. We have no information on file about this site.
Visits were then made to the scheduled Bradup site by two Royal Commission / English Heritage Field Monument Wardens in 1981 and 1985, with the purpose of monitoring the management of the site. Both of these officers found the site difficult to distinguish, noting stones in a rough pasture field.
Subsequently, it appears that several other locations have been claimed for the Bradup Stone Circle across several fields in the locality, including SE 0897 4393 (Paul Bennett). This latter would place the circle within the adjacent improved pasture field and outside the previously scheduled area.
Descheduling the site
During 1994, a visit made to the site at SE 0895 4391 under the English Heritage Monuments Protection Programme (MPP) noted that the site described by Raistrick does not correspond with the remains then visible. According to this MPP officer, the spatial relationships between the stones and stone holes differed from those Raistrick recorded whilst he also appeared to have omitted others. In their opinion, the scheduled site was not a stone circle, but “a haphazard group of rocks … situated on a hillside which has been quarried and has naturally occurring gritstone boulders. The site itself consists of a random collection of boulders and small holes left by stone quarrying on a slight rise and has a roughly rectangular hollow in the centre which may be an excavation.” “The site is lacking in any of the other features normally associated with stone circles … Whether the extra stones represented by the stone holes are taken into account or not there are no grounds for considering this site to be a stone circle or any other type of prehistoric monument. It is therefore recommended for descheduling”.
Subsequently the recommendation for descheduling would have passed by the officer to the Monuments Protection team, who would have passed it to the relevant Inspector of Ancient Monuments for their consideration and approval. It would then have been passed to a committee of archaeological advisors for their consideration and approval before finally being submitted to the Department of Environment (now DCMS) for their approval and action.
Review visit to the descheduled Bradup site
In response to Heritage Action’s concerns, a site visit was undertaken to the descheduled site by several members of English Heritage’s Heritage Protection team in November 2005. At SE 0895 4391 they observed a number of exposed stones in a rough pasture field, some earthfast, and also hollows that may represent removed stones. The team could not relate the remains at this location to either Raistrick’s description or the Ordnance Survey drawing and concluded that the remains at this location had been mis-attributed (comprising natural boulders and quarrying) and that descheduling was the appropriate action. If a stone circle had been located in the nearby improved pasture field, which was never protected by scheduling, then any remains have been removed. “Either way [they conclude], de-scheduling was the correct action, and unless evidence is produced that demonstrates surviving prehistoric remains no further action should be undertaken”.
Conclusion
In conclusion then, the site afforded legal protection between 1933 and 1995 as a Scheduled Monument was located in the rough pasture field at SE 0895 4391. Since the 1970s several successive archaeologists have been unable to locate the remains of a stone circle in this location, leading to an interpretation of mis-attribution and the descheduling of this site; an interpretation that has recently been upheld by the Heritage Protection team. There has been no landscape change in this area subsequent to descheduling, with the land-use remaining as rough pasture and the previously protected stones and hollows remaining in place.
Other accounts place a potential stone circle in a nearby field. This potential site was never subject to any legal protection as a designated Scheduled Monument, and any potential surface remains have been removed by the farmer, within his legal rights, during its conversion to improved pasture.”
In this reply, notice the remark describing the position of the circle: “Our records show that a site at Bradup was scheduled as a stone circle in 1933 at grid reference SE 0895 4391, based on information provided by a partial survey of the site made by Dr A Raistrick in 1920 and on reports recorded in 1885.” This is either deliberate misinformation, or bad record-keeping, as neither Robert Collyer’s 1885 reference, nor Arthur Raistrick’s 1929 account cites such a grid-reference. It is possible that when the Ordnance Survey lad, R. Emsley, visited here in 1961, that he looked at the wrong dubious ‘ring’ of low stones over the fence into the heather. Somehow he, or his subsequent record-keepers, mistook what Raistrick said were the “most notable feature (are) the large size of the stones”, for the small earthfast rocks over the fence. This is very poor when you consider that the 1970s 1:10,000 OS-map of this area clearly shows the circle to be in the field, indicating that the Ordnance Survey fella had been, seen and recorded it correctly.
One final element on this “grid-reference” error: I have in front of me the List of Scheduled Monuments in the Bradford District (“The Schedule is currently not available on” their website cos the people who get paid to do such a thing can’t be arsed), dated from the 1990s. The “Bradup stone circle near Bradup Bridge, Morton” is cited as being at “SE 0900 4400” and not the OS grid reference described in the explanation about the site’s destruction. Funny that innit…?
There’s much more that I could say in response to this excuse for de-scheduling and allowing the destruction of Bradup stone circle, but I’m hoping that people can see for themselves that ‘excuses’ are the order of the day in this report. Simply put: the Bradup stone circle was destroyed due to the ineptitude of ‘authorities’ mistaking several natural earthfast rocks at the grid-reference they give (if indeed even that’s the right one for it!) for the real prehistoric circle in the adjacent field. In short, they fucked up – and the email above is their attempt at an excuse to cover up their mistakes. We all know how they cover each others backs when they screw up. If you or I did this, we’d be in court.
Folklore
Also known as the Brass Castle and the Kirkstones (indicating it as a place of worship), Cowling (1946) told how “local lore suggests that the place is haunted.” The name Kirkstones derives from the rock outcrop 800 yards north of here, where the stones which made this site may have come from. A dowsing survey found there to be water beneath the circle, but this wasn’t mapped.
Stone Circle (destroyed): OS Grid Reference – SE 748 282?
Archaeology & History
I’ve looked and looked for info on this seemingly lost site, but have found very little. It lent its name to the very woodland within, or on whose edges, it could once be found. First described as early as 1284 in the ‘Calendar of Patent Rolls’ – where is appeared as ‘Ringestainhirst‘ – and then in the Testamenta Eboracensia in 1391, it is mentioned several other times before falling into nothing but literary memory in the middle of the 19th century.
We don’t know for sure where the circle was located, though one Latin reference describes it in proximity to a hermitage once known as St. Mary Magdalen’s Chapel at Howden: “heremitae de Ryngstanhyrste.” The site would likely have been on the highest point in the locality, which may put it where the great church now stands, or perhaps on the more northern and western outskirts of the township. Are there any Howden historians reading this who might be able to throw a bit more light on the issue?
The great place-name authority A.H. Smith (1937) thought that the Ringstone Hurst (woodland) at Howden got its name from a “wood near the circular stone”; but modern etymologists would place a much greater likelihood that the woodland owed its name to the now lost stone circle that was once in this locality.
References:
Raine, James (ed.), Testamenta Eboracensia; or, Wills Registered at York, J.B. Nichols: London 1836.
Smith, A.H., The Place-Names of the East Riding of Yorkshire, Cambridge University Press 1937.
