Castlerigg Stone Circle - Antiquarian Study of Castlerigg

Antiquarian Study of Castlerigg

Two of Britain's earliest antiquarians, John Aubrey (1626–97) and William Camden (1551–1623), visited Cumbria with an interest in studying the area's megalithic monuments. Both described Long Meg and Her Daughters, another large stone circle, and recounted local legend and folklore associated with this monument, but neither writers mentions a visit to Castlerigg or the area around Keswick. John Aubrey was also the first writer to erroneously connect Neolithic and Bronze-Age megalithic monuments with the Iron-Age Druids.

It was not until the early 18th century that Castlerigg came to the attention of the wider public, when William Stukeley (1687–1765) visited the site, in 1725.

Stukeley’s account of his visit to Castlerigg is brief and was published in his Itinerarium Curiosum in 1776, 11 years after his death. Stukeley’s visit is important, as it is the earliest written record of the stone circle at Castlerigg:

…for a mile before we came to Keswick, on an eminence in the middle of a great concavity of those rude hills, and not far from the banks of the river Greata, I observed another Celtic work, very intire: it is 100 foot in diameter, and consists of forty stones, some very large. At the east end of it is a grave, made of such other stones, in number about ten: this is placed in the very east point of the circle, and within it: there is not a stone wanting, though some are removed a little out of their first station: they call it the Carsles, and, corruptly I suppose, Castle-rig. There seemed to be another larger circle in the next pasture toward the town. (Stukeley 1969 Vol. II, 48).

Stukeley could be describing the circle as it stands today, as it has changed little in the three centuries since his visit. The rectangular enclosure within the circle, that Stukeley took to be a grave, still consists of 10 stones. It is not clear, however, why Stukeley believed the circle was not missing a single stone. Today there are several large gaps in the circle, suggesting that a number of stones may have indeed been either moved into a different position (possibly after the stone had fallen) or been removed completely. Of course, there is no certainty today as to the original appearance of the circle, or how much it may have changed in the preceding millennia, prior to Stukeley's visit. It is believed, however, that the circle survives today in a relatively intact state, changed certainly, but not so far from its original design.

Stukeley’s observation of a second circle in the next field is a great revelation that places the stones at Castlerigg in a whole new light; that he fails to deliver a description demonstrates well the frustration felt by modern researchers when dealing with the works of antiquarians. This account could easily be dismissed today as pure fancy or it could be thought that he had mistakenly described a natural feature, as there is no evidence of it today, either above ground or in the observations of later scholars.