Follow the same directions as if you’re visiting the nearby Nether Glenny 1 cairn; but look into the field immediately north (through the gate on the other side of the fence) about 100 yards away and you’ll see the telling bump rising out of the grasses.
Archaeology & History
Another burial mound of roughly the same size and form as its companion 100 yards to the south, but this one appears to be more intact than its close neighbour. The top centre of the overgrown cairn seems to have been robbed sometime in the past—perhaps for use in the nearby walling; perhaps by treasure-seekers. We will probably never really know.
Nether Glenny 2 & its close neighbour
Although much overgrown in grasses (with species of shamanic fungi surrounding), the roughly circular tomb is between 3-4 feet high, roughly flat-topped, and measures 12 yards north-south, by 15 yards east-west. There is no immediate evidence of the internal tomb and it has yet to be satisfactorily excavated. A small outcrop of stones about 30 yards to the north possesses a highly impressive detailed multi-ringed neolithic petroglyph.
References:
Bailey, G.B., ‘Nether Glenny (Port of Menteith parish)’, in Discovery & Excavation Scotland, 1987.
Along the A81 road from Port of Menteith to Aberfoyle, watch out for the small road in the trees running at an angle sharply uphill, nearly opposite Portend, up to Coldon and higher. Keep going, bearing right at Mondowie, then stopping at the dirt-track 100 yards or so further up. Walk up the track, thru the gate, and another 100 yards or so higher up, go thru the gate on your left. Walk up the field alongside the fence until you’re on the level and you’ll see a large rounded mound about 75 yards in the same field to your left.
Archaeology & History
This little known prehistoric tomb sits within a landscape rich in very impressive neolithic and Bronze Age petroglyphs and probably had some relationship with one or more of the carvings in aeons past. It is one of several tombs in the area.
Rainbow across the tomb
The site was only recently rediscovered in the 1980s, following an archaeological survey of the area before the forestry plantation was done. Measuring about 20 yards across and about five feet high, the large mound consists of the traditional mass of hundreds, if not thousands of stones. It seems that a ring of small uprights encircled and defined the edge of the cairn, although this element is only visible on its eastern side. Its northern mass and edges have been dug into and ruined at some point in the past, leaving a mass of rubble visible beneath the encroaching grasses. The tomb has not be adequately excavated, so we do not know whether it was built at the same time of the surrounding petroglyphs. It must be noted (again) that the incidence of tombs and cup-and-ring stones is not infrequent.
Take the minor high road between the hamlets of Marske and Fremington (up Hard Stiles from Marske side), turning up Stelling Road at the crossroads, and ⅔-mile (1.1km) along, turn right up Helwith Road. ¾-mile (1.2km) along, on the right, walk thru the gate onto the moor following the walling. Nearly 400 yards on you meet a junction of walling: walk past this until you reach the next line of walling and then follow it northeast for just over 500 yards. Once there, look for the mounds in the heather immediately south, less than 50 yards away.
Archaeology & History
This is one of the “isolated cairns of fair size” mentioned in passing by Tim Laurie (1985) in his survey of the massive settlement and field systems scattering this gorgeous moorland arena. It is one amongst a scatter of several in and around the eastern height of Cock Howe hill on the south side of Skelton Moor. The area has sadly been scarred by an excess of old lime mines—many of which are visible close by—damaging with some severity the excess of prehistoric remains on these moors, none of which have yet been excavated in any detail. This cairn included.
More cairns to the rear
Even though much of the heather here had been burnt back when James Elkington and I visited the place recently, the pile of stones was still very embedded into the peat. The moorland rabbits had dislodged some of the stones, highlighting the mass of rocks much better. It stands nearly a metre high and is roughly 7 yards by 8 yards in diameter from edge to edge, structurally similar to the many Bronze Age cairns scattering Rombalds Moor, Askwith Moor and other Yorkshire clusters. A second cairn of similar size and stature exists some 30 yards to the southeast (visible on one of the photos).
For anyone who might visit this site, the most impressive features hereby are the huge settlement remains scattering the moors just north of the wall a few yards away. When the heather has been burnt back, a veritable prehistoric city unfolds before your eyes, with extensive lengths of walling, hut circles and what can only be described as huge halls, in which tribal meetings probably occurred – much of it in superb condition! Well worth visiting.
References:
Laurie, T.C., “Early Land Division and Settlement in Swaledale,” in Upland Settlement in Britain: the Second Millennium B.C. and After, ed. Don Spratt and Colin Burgess, BAR British Series 143, 1985.
Martlew, R.D., Prehistory in the Yorkshire Dales, YDLRT: York 2011.
Access to these stones has, over recent years been pretty dreadful by all accounts. It’s easy enough to locate. Go into Calderstones Park and head for the large old vestibule or large greenhouse. If you’re fortunate enough to get one of the keepers, you may or may not get in. If anyone has clearer info on how to breach this situation and allow access as and when, please let us know.
Archaeology & History
Earliest known drawing from 1825, showing the carvings
Marked on the 1846 Ordnance Survey map in a position by the road junctions at the meeting of township boundaries, where the aptly-named Calderstones Road and Druids Cross Road meet, several hundred yards north of its present site in Harthill Greenhouses in Calderstones Park, this is a completely fascinating site whose modern history is probably as much of a jigsaw puzzle as its previous 5000 years have been!
Thought to have originally have been a chambered tomb of some sort, akin to the usual fairy hill mound of earth, either surrounded by a ring of stones, or the stones were covered by earth. The earliest known literary reference to the Calderstones dates from 1568, where it is referenced in a boundary dispute, typical of the period when the land-grabbers were in full swing. The dispute was over a section of land between Allerton and Wavertree and in it the stones were called “the dojer, rojer or Caldwaye stones.” At that time it is known that the place was a roughly oval mound. But even then, we find that at least one of the stones had been taken away, in 1550.
Little was written about the place from then until the early 19th century, when descriptions and drawings began emerging. The earliest image was by one Captain William Latham in 1825. On this (top-right) we have the first hint of carvings on some of the stones, particularly the upright one to the right showing some of the known cup-markings that still survive. By the year 1833 however, the ‘mound’ that either surrounded or covered the stones was destroyed. Victorian & Paul Morgan (2004) told us,
“The destruction first began in the late 18th or early 19th century when the mound was largely removed to provide sand for making mortar for a Mr Bragg’s House on Woolton Road. It was at this time that a ‘fine sepulchral urn rudely ornamented outside’ was found inside.”
The Calderstones in 1840
The same authors narrated the account of the mound’s final destruction, as remembered by a local man called John Peers—a gardener to some dood called Edward Cox—who was there when it met its final demise. Mr Cox later wrote a letter explaining what his gardener had told him and sent it to The Daily Post in 1896, which lamented,
“When the stones were dug down to, they seemed rather tumbled about in the mound. They looked as if they had been a little hut or cellar. Below the stones was found a large quantity of burnt bones, white and in small pieces. He thought there must have been a cartload or two. He helped to wheel them out and spread them on the field. He saw no metal of any sort nor any flint implements, nor any pottery, either whole or broken; nor did he hear of any. He was quite sure the bones were in large quantity, but he saw no urn with them. Possibly the quantity was enhanced by mixture with the soil. No one made such of old things of that sort in his time, nor cared to keep them up…”
But thankfully the upright stones remained—and on them were found a most curious plethora of neolithic carvings. After the covering cairn had been moved, the six remaining stones were set into a ring and, thankfully, looked after. These stones were later removed from their original spot and, after a bit of messing about, came to reside eventually in the curious greenhouse in Calderstones Park.
Simpson’s “Stone 1” outer faceSimpson’s “Stone 1” inner face
The carvings on the stones were first described in detail by the pioneering James Simpson. (1865) I hope you’ll forgive me citing his full description of them—on one of which he could find no carvings at the time, but he did state that his assessment may be incomplete as the light conditions weren’t too good. Some things never change! Sir James wrote:
“The Calder circle is about six yards in diameter. It consists of five stones which are still upright, and one that is fallen. The stones consist of slabs and blocks of red sandstone, all different in size and shape.
“The fallen stone is small, and shews nothing on its exposed side; but possibly, if turned over, some markings might be discovered on its other surface.
“Of the five standing stones, the largest of the set (No. I) is a sandstone slab, between five and six feet in height and in breadth. On its outer surface—or the surface turned to the exterior of the circle— there is a flaw above from disintegration and splintering of the stone; but the remaining portion of the surface presents between thirty and forty cup depressions, varying from two to three and a half inches in diameter; and at its lowest and left-hand corner is a concentric circle about a foot in diameter, consisting of four enlarging rings, but apparently without any central depression.
“The opposite surface of this stone, No. 1, or that directed to the interior of the circle, has near its centre a cup cut upon it, with the remains of one surrounding ring. On the right side of this single-ringed cup are the faded remains of a concentric circle of three rings. To the left of it there is another three-ringed circle, with a central depression, but the upper portions of the rings are broken off. Above it is a double-ringed cup, with this peculiarity, that the external ring is a volute leading from the central cup, and between the outer and inner ring is a fragmentary line of apparently another volute, making a double-ringed spiral which is common on some Irish stones, as on those of the great archaic mausoleum at New Grange, but extremely rare in Great Britain. At the very base of this stone, and towards the left, are two small volutes, one with a central depression or cup, the other seemingly without it. One of these small volutes consists of three turns, the other of two.
“The next stone, No. 2 in the series, is about six feet high and somewhat quadrangular. On one of its sides, half-way up, is a single cup cutting; on a second side, and near its base, a volute consisting of five rings or turns, and seven inches and a half in breadth ; and on a third side (that pointing to the interior of the circle), a concentric circle of three rings placed half-way or more up the stone.
“The stone No. 3, placed next to it in the circle, is between three and four feet in height; thick and somewhat quadrangular, but with the angles much rounded off. On its outermost side is apparently a triple circle cut around a central cup; but more minute examination and fingering of the lines shews that this figure is produced by a spiral line or volute starting from the central cup, and does not consist of separate rings. The diameter of the outermost circle of the volute is nearly ten inches. Below this figure, and on the rounded edge between it and the next surface of the stone to the left, are the imperfect and faded remains of a larger quadruple circle. On one of the two remaining sides of this stone is a double concentric circle with a radial groove or gutter uniting them. This is the only instance of the radial groove which I observed on the Calder Stones, though such radial direct lines or ducts are extremely common elsewhere in the lapidary concentric circles.
“The stone No. 4 is too much weathered and disintegrated on the sides to present any distinct sculpturings. On its flat top are nine or ten cups ; one large and deep (being nearly five inches in diameter). Seven or eight of these cups are irregularly tied or connected together by linear channels or cuttings…
“The fifth stone is too much disfigured by modern apocryphal cuttings and chisellings to deserve archaeological notice.
“The day on which I visited these stones was dark and wet. On a brighter and more favourable occasion perhaps some additional markings may be discovered.”
It wasn’t long, of course, before J. Romilly Allen (1888) visited the Calderstones and examined the carvings; but unusually he gave them only scant attention and added little new information. Apart from reporting that another of the monoliths had carvings on it, amidst a seven-page article the only real thing of relevance was that,
“Five of the Calderstones show traces, more or less distinct, of this kind of carving, the outer surface of the largest stone having about thirty-six cups upon it, and a set of four concentric rings near the bottom at one corner. One of the stones has several cups and grooves on its upper surface.”
Carvings on Stone A (after Forde-Johnson)Carvings on Stone B (after Forde-Johnson)
Unusual for him! The major survey of the Calderstone carvings took place in the 1950s when J.L. Forde-Johnson (1956; 1957) examined them in great detail. His findings were little short of incredible and, it has to be said, way ahead of his time (most archaeo’s of his period were simply lazy when it came to researching British petroglyphs). Not only were the early findings of Sir James Simpson confirmed, but some fascinating rare mythic symbols were uncovered that had only previously been located at Dunadd in Argyll, Cochno near Glasgow, and Priddy in Somerset: human feet – some with additional toes! Images of feet were found to be carved on Stones A, B and E. A carved element on Stone C may even represent a human figurine—rare things indeed in the British Isles!
Carvings on Stone DCarvings on Stone E
The detailed sketches here are all from Forde-Johnson’s 1957 article, where five of the six stones were found to bear petroglyphs (the sixth stone has, more recently, also been found to also possess faint carvings of a simple cup-mark and five radiating lines).
Elements on Stone C (after Forde-Johnson)More elements on Stone C (after Forde-Johnson)
The date of the site is obviously difficult to assess with accuracy; but I think it is safe to say that the earlier archaeological assumptions of the Calderstones being Bronze Age are probably wrong, and the site is more likely to have been constructed in the neolithic period. It’s similarity in structure and form to other chambered tombs—mentioned by a number of established students from Glyn Daniel (1950) to Frances Lynch—would indicate an earlier period. The fact that no metals of any form have ever been recovered or reported in any of the early accounts add to this neolithic origin probability.
There is still a lot more to be said about this place, but time and sleep are catching me at the mo, so pray forgive my brevity on this profile, until a later date…
Folklore
Curiously, for such an impressive site with a considerable corpus of literary references behind it, folklore accounts are scant. The best that Leslie Grinsell (1976) could find in his survey was from the earlier student C.R. Hand (1912), who simply said that,
“They were looked upon with awe by the people about as having some religious significance quite beyond their comprehension.”
There is however, additional Fortean lore that has been written about these stones and its locale by John Reppion (2011).
Ashbee, Paul, The Bronze Age Round Barrow in Britain, Phoenix House: London 1960.
Baines, Thomas, Lancashire and Cheshire, Past and Present – volume 2, William MacKenzie: London 1870.
Beckensall, Stan, British Prehistoric Rock Art, Tempus: Stroud 1999.
Beckensall, Stan, Circles in Stone: A British Prehistoric Mystery, Tempus: Stroud 2006.
Cowell, Ron, The Calderstones – A Prehistoric Tomb in Liverpool, Merseyside Archaeological Trust 1984.
Crawford, O.G.S., The Eye Goddess, Phoenix House: London 1957.
Daniel, Glyn E., The Prehistoric Chamber Tombs of England and Wales, Cambridge University Press 1950.
Faulkner, B.M., “An Analysis of Three 19th-century Pictures of the Calderstones,” in Merseyside Archaeological Journal, volume 13, 2010.
Forde-Johnson, J.L., “The Calderstones, Liverpool,” in Powell & Daniel, Barclodiad y Gawres: The excavation of a Megalithic Chambered Tomb in Anglesey, Liverpool University Press 1956.
Forde-Johnson, J.L., “Megalithic Art in the North West of Britain: The Calderstones, Liverpool,” in Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, volume 23, 1957.
Grinsell, Leslie, Folklore of Prehistoric Sites in Britain, David & Charles: Newton Abbot 1976.
Hand, Charles R., The Story of the Calderstones, Hand & Co.: Liverpool 1912.
Herdman, W.A., “A Contribution to the History of the Calderstones, near Liverpool,” in Proceedings & Transactions of the Liverpool Biological Society, volume 11, 1896.
Morgan, Victoria & Paul, Prehistoric Cheshire, Landmark: Ashbourne 2004.
Nash, George & Stanford, Adam, “Recording Images Old and New on the Calderstones in Liverpool,” in Merseyside Archaeological Journal, volume 13, 2010.
Picton, James A., Memorials of Liverpool – 2 volumes, Longmans Gree: London 1875.
Simpson, James, Archaic Sculpturings of Cups, Circles, etc., Upon Stones and Rocks in Scotland, England and other Countries, Edmonston & Douglas: Edinburgh 1867.
Taylor, Isaac, Words and Places, MacMillam: London 1885.
Stewart-Brown, Ronald, A History of the Manor and Township of Allerton, Liverpool 1911.
Acknowledgements: With huge thanks to the staff at Calderstones Park; thanks also to the very helpful staff at Liverpool Central Library.
Along the A84 road between Doune and Callander, take the tiny country lane up to your right to Drumloist (if you’re coming from Doune) or up the tiny unmarked road past Keltie Bridge on your left (if you’re coming from Callander). Uphill for several miles, you eventually emerge from the trees and are on the top of the tiny road. Once here, keep your eyes peeled for Drumloist farm. Best thing to do is walk up the track and ask at the farm. The fella there is a superb old Highlander who’ll point you to the place on the hill above.
Archaeology & History
A site that was never explored by that giant of chambered tomb research, Audrey Henshall. A pity, as it has a lot of potential and seems to have a lot more to say about itself than the meagre findings reported by the Scottish Royal Commission doods.
Curious fairy mound to rearOne of two main chambers
Although there’s a very notable “fairy hill” eminence close by which strongly draws your attention, the actual hillock upon which this chambered tomb was constructed is in front of this, closer to the farm. A couple of rows of ancient walling—Iron Age by the look o’things—run up the hillside, with one of them running into the eastern sides of the huge mound which this tomb plays a part in. The mound itself is about a hundred feet across, although seems to have been damaged over the centuries. Although it is probably neolithic in origin, sections of the monument seem to have been altered and re-used for other purposes, giving it that distinctly multi-period look.
The farmer informed us how some of the stones from the mound had been robbed and used in some of the walling in the past. He also told us how there are so many other archaeological features upon the moors above here that remain to be “officially” recorded, despite the efforts of some who swept the region for remains a few decades ago.
Looking down into the main cist
The main prehistoric section of the tomb that can be seen are the two opened cists, or stone-lined graves, to the top north-western edges of the mound. They align together, NE to SW, with a gap of about three yards between the two open tombs. The more northerly of the two is much more overgrown; whilst the southwestern grave comprises of three large flat upright stones, forming a traditional ‘box’ with smaller flat stones lining the floor. But these two separate tombs (if indeed they were originally separated) point directly to the large, very prominent “fairy mound” about 100 yards northeast, on the north side of the Drumloist Burn. The alignment seems very deliberate.
Cup-and-partial-ring to right centre
Walking over the boggy ground to the (unnamed) fairy mound, a natural ‘platform’ of rocks sticks out on its southeasterly side, and upon this are two large cup-markings, with the more easterly one of the two seeming to have a carved arc along its edge. Looking from this mound, back across to the Ballachraggan tomb, the open flat landscape heading southwest is held where the sunset falls. Sadly on the day we visited, Nature greeted us with grey cloud and the drizzle of light rain all afternoon, so we couldn’t make out if there was something, far away, which the tomb was truly aligned with… A damn good site though!
A profile of two seemingly trivial cup-marked stones is called for, out of memory for the carvings and also because they are now hidden in some vault somewhere, out of view in one of the Scottish museums I presume. In visiting the impressive Cairnpapple Hill the other day, I thought that the carvings should really be in situ, where they belong, and not in a box somewhere for the eyes of just a privileged few.
Cairnpapple Cist A
Two small, single, almost portable-sized stones—not unlike other cup-marked rocks found at sites like the Little Skirtful of Stones and elsewhere—were unearthed during the primary excavation of Cairnpapple by Stuart Piggott in the late-1940s. Although there are many stone-lined cremation pits and graves at Cairnpapple, only one of the tombs seemed to possess any carvings—and these were found only in the western walling in one of the larger of the two tombs that are now housed inside the modern covering tumulus, in what Piggott (1950) called ‘Cist A’. (Curiously in all sketches of the tomb, he didn’t show where the carvings were found, typical of some archaeologists of that period who saw little importance in these relics.)
Cist A capstone, with large cup
The giant stone roof or covering stone to Cist A also has a large worked cup-marking on its western side. There are also what seems to be other faint rectangular etchings on the same rock-face, but the age and nature of these elements need to be assessed with some caution.
References:
Cox, Adrian, Cairnpapple Hill, Historic Scotland: Edinburgh 2010.
A variety of ways to get here, all depending on which directions you’re coming from, obviously! Simply get to the sleepy old hamlet of Brunton, SW of Creich Castle ruins, and at the north end of the village where the road hits a T-junction, turn left and stop at the next house (hidden amongst trees) a coupla hundred yards along on the right-hand side. Knock on the door of The Manse (marked as such on the OS-maps) and ask. The fella who we met here, Liam, was very helpful and guided us to the site up the far end of his garden.
Archaeology & History
The small central ring
A truly fascinating and enigmatic arena for a host of reasons. The small and well-preserved ring of stones up the slope behind Creich Manse — looked after and recently cleared of covering vegetation by the present tenant — wasn’t born here, but originally lived more than a mile to the southwest, on the grounds of Luthrie House near the OS grid-reference NO 313 195.
Curiously omitted from the giant surveys of Aubrey Burl (2000) and other modern academics, the place was first mentioned in the New Statistical Account of the parish by Alexander Lawson. It told that in 1816 “trenching operations” were being undertaken in Luthrie village when, at some point, the men came across a curious group of stones that seemed to have faint carvings upon them — in the centre of a ring of stones! The land-owner and parish minister were called to the site and they found that a double stone circle had been unearthed. The account told:
“In the centre was placed, in an upright position, a cylindrical sandstone, one foot two inches high, and having the diameter of its base one foot. Around this stone, as a centre, at the distance of three feet, were sixteen other stones, placed also in an upright position, and in the form of a circle. The stones of which it was composed were of various sizes, from fifteen to twenty inches in height; from eight to eighteen in breadth, and from four to nine in thickness. Due south of the centre, and between it and the inner circle, there were placed in a horizontal position, two stones containing hieroglyphics in alto relievo, very entire. The remaining space between the centre and the circle was laid with pavement. At the distance of seven feet and a half from the same central pillar, there was another circle of stones, thirty-two in number, placed in an upright position, and very much resembling those of the inner circle. The stones in both circles were placed close together. Between the circles there was neither pavement nor stone of any description. Neither were perfect circles, the diameter of one from north to south, being fifteen feet one inch, while its diameter from east to west was only fourteen feet nine inches; in the same manner, the diameter of the other, from east to west, was five feet ten inches, while from north to south it was it was six feet one inch.”
Ground-plan of the Creich ringCreich ring, looking west
The account went on to describe there being a deposit of “burned human bones and charcoal” at the centre, below the larger of the two petroglyphs. Additionally, one of those peculiarly common traits found at a number of megalithic remains related to the construction of the inner and outer circles of stone. The Royal Commission (1933) lads pointed it out, saying,
“It is remarkable that all the stones of the inner circle were of sandstone, which is not found nearer than Cupar, seven miles away, while those of the outer circle were of the local whinstone.”
Another description of the site was given in James Campbell’s (1899) updated and revised magnum opus on the parish of Balmerino, where some additional remarks were made about the petroglyphs. He told:
“Under one of the sculptured stones were found small burnt human bones and ashes. They were not enclosed in a cist, nor was there any building under the surface. Certain of the figures cut on one of the slabs of this monument are very similar to the figures on the sculptured slab of the one already mentioned. There are what appear to be representations of the soles of a pair of shoes, a circle with a cross within it — the limbs of the cross being: at right angles to each other — which may be intended to represent a wheel. On one of the stones is the figure of a spade. What the other figures represent is more uncertain. The sculptures raise difficult questions in regard to the time of the erection of these monuments. It is evident that cremation had been then practised at Creich, though the degree of culture and art indicated by the sculptures seems to point to a time subsequent to the abolition of this pagan custom elsewhere.”
Creich Circle petroglyphsCreich Ring, looking east
The carvings illustrated here are pretty unique in terms of them being standard prehistoric petroglyphs, as they seem to comprise more of a mix of Iron Age and Romano-British designs – though potentially we must take into account that they could be a form of Pictish. This region is littered with the remains of Picts, in place-names, folklore and archaeology. As such, it would be very helpful if someone qualified in Pictish studies could examine these designs. We do find petroglyphs of similar forms to this in Bronze Age Scandinavia and Iberia − but not Fife!
Folklore
In the only account of any folklore relating to this site, James Campbell (1867) told that local people said the place was “supposed to have marked the tombs of distinguished chiefs.”
…to be continued…
References:
Burl, Aubrey, The Stone Circles of Britain, Ireland and Brittany, Yale University Press 2000.
Campbell, James, Balmerino and its Abbey – Volume 1, William Blackwood: Edinburgh 1899.
As with many prehistoric sites, this too was unearthed and seemingly destroyed in the 19th century. Although it seems that nothing now remains of the place, the english archaeological fraternity have the site listed as a “Romano-British site”, which seems reasonable; although the lay-out of the barrows or tumuli described and portrayed in the sketch here give a more traditional Bronze Age look. But we may never know for sure. Thankfully a fellow antiquarian called Walter Field (1863) was on hand to make a record of the place before its final destruction. In a short paper he wrote for the Essex Archaeological Society, he told that:
“In the Spring of 1858, a number of labourers were employed in trenching some fields belonging to Holme Farm, forming part of a large tract of land called Bulphan Fen, and situated about a mile-and-a-half west of the village of North Ockenden. In the course of their operations they found a number of beds of dark soil, in which were a large quantity of bones, supposed at first to be human, together with fragments of pottery and pieces of charcoal. It was the general belief among the workmen that the field had been the scene of some great battle, a belief supported by some local traditions. One thing seems certain, that it is the site of a Roman or early British Burial Ground, extending over a space of about sixteen acres; but whether it marks the battlefield of one of those many great struggles which took place in this county between the Britons and Romans, or whether it denotes the peaceful cemetery of a Roman Station, it is perhaps not very easy to determine.
“The little evidence, however, which the plough and the harrow have left remaining, seems in favour of the latter. The regular and almost equidistant arrangement of the lines of dark soil in many parts, and the many fragments of cinerary urns found in nearly all of them, seem to indicate rather the orderly interment of a cemetery, than the more hasty burial of a battle-field; but this is by no means conclusive.
“The graves are at once discernible from the surrounding soil, the natural soil being a yellow clay, whilst the earth of the graves is nearly black. It is impossible, with any accuracy, to trace the exact forms of the graves, some appear to be circular, and to vary in size from 10 to 40 feet in circumference, others appear to be of an oblong form; one grave is much larger than the rest, and is of about 60 feet in length and 20 in width. There are doubtless more of these graves in the bordering fields. It is worthy of note that a neighbouring meadow is called the Church Field, and a portion of the land on which these discoveries were made is still called Ruin Field. Both these names, probably, have reference to the formerly uneven sur&ce of the ground, caused by a great number of burial mounds. The fragments of Pottery vary much in their character, some being of the very rudest workmanship, whilst others have been more carefully manufactured; and a few small pieces of Samian Ware were found; mingled with them, were the bones of different animals — the horse, the deer, the boar, etc., but no human bones; much of the earth, stones, and pieces of wood bear evident marks of the action of fire; beyond these there was nothing found, except a portion of a flint arrow-head and a part of a hand mill stone. Not a single coin or piece of metal was discovered. The circumstances that all the fragments of pottery, and nearly all the bones of animals, are broken up into small pieces lying equally at the bottom as at the top of the dark soil, and that the graves are about three feet deep, narrow at the bottom and widening to the surface, lead me to think that the present graves are only the trenches of the original barrows, but that the field has been gradually levelled for agricultural purposes, and that the plough and the spade have in process of time filled up the original trenches with the soil, urns, bones, &c., of the burial mound.”
References:
Field, Walter, “Discovery of British and Roman Remains at North Ockenden and White Notley,” in Transactions of the Essex Archaeological Society, volume 2, 1863.
This site entry is dedicated to Sarah Hunt, once of North Ockendon, wherever she may be…
A mile or so WNW of the fantastic standing stones of Lundin, and just a coupla hundred yards above where the lesser standing stone of Balgrummo lives, we could once see an impressive prehistoric burial mound on the small hilltop of Aithernie. Sadly, like oh too many prehistoric sites in our landscape, it was vandalised and destroyed in the 19th century by the prevailing stupidity of the period. Thankfully we have a couple of accounts describing the place.
The site had already passed into memory when the Ordnance Survey fellas got up here in 1854, but an account of it was made in the ‘Object Name Book’ of the parish a decade earlier. Thankfully the story of the site was known locally and, along with the New Statistical Account describing the olde mound, A.S. Cunningham (1906) told the story of when it was “opened” and then of its subsequent demise. He wrote how,
“…in 1821 a much more interesting relic of antiquity…was opened in a field on the estate of Aithernie. When digging moulding sand for Leven Foundry, the workmen struck right into the heart of an ancient tumulus. This cemetery of prehistoric times contained as many as twenty rude stone cists. These cists were typical of the prehistoric burial places found throughout the country. They were constructed of slabs placed on edge, with a covering stone, and cemented with clay puddling. Above the coffins was a covering of stones, the stones having hundreds of years before been so firmly cemented together with clay and sand that the workmen required the aid of picks to enable them to “rifle the tombs.” Small urns were found in two of the coffins, and five of them contained larger urns, 14 inches in diameter and 24 inches in depth, and in another cist quantities of charred wood beads were discovered. All the coffins, except the five in which were the large urns, contained human bones, and innumerable bones were found outwith the mouths of the cists.”
When the Royal Commission (1933) lads visited the place in 1925, they reported “no existing indication of a tumulus” remained. Gone!
Royal Commission on the Ancient & Historical Monuments, Scotland, Inventory of Monuments and Constructions in the Counties of Fife, Kinross and Clackmannan, HMSO: Edinburgh 1933.
Tumulus (destroyed): OS Grid Reference — NT 237 861
Archaeology & History
Very little is known about a prehistoric tomb that once existed near the coast at Craigkennockie. Its existence was briefly described in Andrew Young’s (1913) fine history of the township where he told that it had been highlighted on an old Estate Map of the area and marked as, “an artificial cairn, probably a place of sepulture.” On old maps just below the cited place we find the place-name of ‘Lammerlaws’, which may indicate a name once given to the site, as the element -law is commonly found relating to prehistoric cairns.
Although the modern place-name researchers in central Scotland have opted that the word ‘law’ is primarily “a rounded hill”, they have curiously forgotten or omitted its other derivation. Throughout northern England and beyond, the English Place-Name Society finds that many ‘law’ place-names derive from the old English and Saxon word, hlaw, which is originally told to be “a mound, a hill.” This has been the reference cited throughout in Taylor & Markus’ (2006-2012) otherwise fine multi-volume analysis of Fife county. But there’s much more to it than that. I hope that readers will forgive me reciting A.H. Smith’s (1956) full entry about this simple term, as it can (and many times does) show our history is much richer than initially thought. Prof Smith told that law, hlaw, hlæw, has the following etymological origin:
“(1) In OE (old English) the common meaning in literary contexts is ‘an artificial mound, a burial mound, a mound in which treasure is hidden’, as in Boethius Metr. 10.43, ‘in what hlæwa do the bones of Weland cover the ground?; Beowulf 2802, ‘Bid them make a hlæaw…on Hronesnæsse’; Guthlac 4 ‘there on the island was made a great hlæw, which through the lust for treasure had been dug up and broken into’; or Gnomic Verses 26, ‘a dragon shall be on hlæw’, an allusion (as in Beowulf 2773) to the Germanic tradition that mounds containing valuable grave-goods were guarded by dragons. The word glosses Latin, agger, ‘something heaped up, a mound, a rampart’ (Wright’s Anglo-Saxon & Old English Vocabularies 355.4). This meaning ‘tumulus, artificial mound, burial mound’ is well attested in place-names. According to Grundy, it always denotes a tumulus in the OE charters and doubtless those place-names in which it is combined with personal names are the burial places of the men so named; at Taplow at least a remarkable burial treasure was discovered and Cuckhamsley, Berkshire, is named from Cwichelm, the West Saxon king who died in 593. The majority of such places-names belong to the heathen period when this method of disposing of the dead was practised. Particular compounds also suggest that it could be an artificial mound which formed the centre of a place of assembly; Oswaldslow Hundred (Place-names of Worcestershire, 87), for example, was created in 964 and it was to meet at a place to be henceforth called Oswaldeslaw in honour of Bishop Oswald (Cartularium Saxonica 1135).
“(2) The meaning ‘hill, a conical hill resembling a tumulus’ is also found in OE, as in Leechdoms Vol.3, 52, ‘they rode over the hlæw’, and local topography establishes this meaning as a common one in place-names and dialects in certain parts of the country; it survives as law in Durham and Northumberland and as low in northwest Midlands…
“(3) The two forms hlaw and hlæw are on record, the latter being better evidenced in literary use, especially in West Saxon texts, and the former in place-names; hlæw normally becomes low, north country law, whilst the i-mutated hlæw (found in place-names only in the south and south Midlands) later becomes lew, as in Lew, Oxfordshire, Lewes, Sussex and is more frequent in middle-english spellings; it is often later replaced by –low as in Dragley, Lancs, Cuckhamsley, Berkshire…”
Smith continues with many topographical evidences regarding a ‘burial-mound’ derivation for the place-name ‘law’, finally adding notes on relative linguistic similarities, like the “Gothic hlaiw, ‘grave’; old High German hleo, ‘grave mound, hill’; old Saxon hleo, ‘grave mound’…” It seems pretty convincing, and so we need to take this into account in our walks over the hills if we are exploring ancient history.
As if to emphasize this derivation—’law’ as prehistoric tombs—we find it is cited in the massive Scottish National Dictionary (6,1:16) where—alongside the ’rounded hill’ aspect—Mr Grant (1962) tells it to be,
“An artificial mound or hillock, specif.: (1) a tumlus or barrow, grave-mound….”
thereafter giving a number of Scottish examples. The same meaning is echoed again in the modern version of Concise Scots Dictionary (2005), along with the rounded-hill. Jamieson’s (1885) Scottish Dictionary cites similarly, ‘law’ as both hill, aswell as “a tomb, grave or mound.”
This association of ‘law’ with ancient burial mounds in Scotland should not be that surprising. Despite it having an Anglo-Saxon origin, we must remember that the Saxon kingdom is known to have stretched all the way up to the Firth of Forth (Edinburgh) and across to Glasgow. So if the linguistic roots have any credibility at all, it doesn’t take much stretch of the imagination to have this simple word travel further north amongst the people. Perhaps this is why, more recently, Margaret Gelling (2000) has said that the association of hlaw with burial mounds up here lessens in Scotland. Nonetheless, let us not presuppose one meaningful definition of the word above another, as it can, consciously or otherwise, be seen as more symptomatic of the all too common English attitude of papering over another country’s rich and ancient heritage by depleting its language—again…
(Law has another element attached which has all but fallen out of historical analysis. Prof Smith touched briefly upon it, mentioning ‘law’ as being a meeting place—otherwise known ‘moots’. Moots occurred everywhere in early times: in England, in Europe and in Scotland too. They were originally where local tribal gatherings took place, for the purpose of what we might call council or political decisions, amongst other things. Some of these moots occurred on burial mounds of great age, aswell as stone circles—and evidence indicates that some of them originated way back in prehistoric times. Although written accounts of many such moot spots have fallen from historical texts, the term law or low (and their variants) is again found in Scottish etymological and topographical lore. Mr Grant again cites it to mean:
“Law cairns, or court cairns…the judicial sites of baronial court of justice…”
Thereafter giving numerous citations of its use in both the common tongue and sites where it is known. As far north as the Shetland Isles, where such law-courts aer known from the Scandinavian ting of thing, the 18th century Statistical Account of Tingwall states there being “the Law Stone” at the cite of the parish court.)
Folklore
Also in Mr Young’s (1913) work, he told how this old tomb was a place that seemed cursed or should not be disturbed, saying,
“About 50 years ago, any illness in the neighbourhood of Craigholm was ascribed to the influence of this burial place…”
adding that an adjacent spring of water, of high esteem, was close by.
References:
Grant, William (ed.), Scottish National Dictionary – volume 6, SNDA: Edinburgh 1962.
Jamieson, John, Etymological Dictionary of the Scottish Language, W.P. Nimmo: Edinburgh 1885.
Robinson, Mairi (ed.), Concise Scots Dictionary, Aberdeen University Press 2005.
Smith, A.H., English Place-Name Elements – volume 1, Cambridge University Press 1956
