More information : In plate 3 p.5. (4) may be seen a circular barrow, "below the road to the left hand on the side of the hill. Under it is a spring head running eastward to Long Compton. This barrow has had stonework at the east end of it" (The illustration referred to is a view of the Rollrich Stones from the South). (1).
Evans quotes Stukeley, and places the tumulus about 220 yards WNW of
the King Stone by virtue of a sketch plan accompanying a drawing of
the tumulus inserted in Gough's edn. of Camden in the Bodleian
Library. The drawing (see Illustration Card) shows a stone, broken in halves, surmounting the tumulus, and the sketch plan describes the feature as "fallen stone on a mound undermined". Evans sums it up thus; "It seems to have been a true `Round Barrow' with a menhir at top, which may have fallen owing to the sinking in of an internal cist." It has "long disappeared". (2).
Crawford quotes Stukeley and Evans and makes note of the latter's
siting of this feature, but says the probable true site is by the side f an old track descending the hill on the edge of the scarp, where there are two large stones and a pile of smaller ones to the east.
Evans siting (A - SP 29433100)
Crawford's siting (B - SP 2923120) (3).
The Evans site falls on arable land, and there are no surface
indications.
At Crawford's site only one large stone was located (at SP 29263118).
The pile of small stones are from the surface of the adjacent fields.
No recognisable features of a barrow were seen. (4).
(See Illustration Card - Plan showing four possible sitings of the
tumulus with remains of stonework:
c. SP 29483095, c. SP 29433087, SP 29253120 and SP 29423100) (5).
Beesley (a) gives the position and size of the King Stone (SP 23 SE
14) with the comment that "many years ago another single stone stood
on a bank or mound 141 yards west of the stone circle" (SP 23 SE 14).
Barrows near the King Stone seem almost to have disappeared by
Ravenhill's (b) time, though he observed two slight humps in the
field, west of the King Stone. These are probably both references
to Stukeley's barrow with stonework. (6).
The barrow with large stones west of the King Stone field was well
illustrated at the end of the 18th century and a plan of it in
relationship to the Rollright Stones is preserved in the Bodleian.
Excavations in 1983, on the site shown on the plan, revealed no trace
of the barrow which may well have been removed soon after it was
illustrated as it was described then as `a fallen stone on a mound
undermined'. (7).
The site has been known since Stukeley described it as being round with stone on it. It is shown in a number of antiquarian drawings and its location was plotted with as much accuracy as possible prior to a trench being dug in 1983.
The excavation found nothing above natural bedrock in this area and the ploughsoil was modern. Any barrow on the site would have been destroyed by modern cultivation. It is possible that features cutting the natural bedrock survive if the barrow is incorrectly located. However, this is mere speculation.
At present, there is insufficient evidence to determine the exact nature of the site which cannot be precisely located on the basis of the available data. It is therefore impossible to clearly identify a constraint area for scheduling purposes. Or, more importantly, a level of survival. (8) |