The findspot of a Mesolithic flint scatter found by the mid-20th century. A considerable amount of worked flint was found, including 4 boxes of Bann or Heavy-blade type tanged points, blades and flakes, other Mesolithic blades and some later iron objects. OS Field No. 2660.
Iron Age defended promontory. A massive bank and ditch forms the defences of this promontory fort. On the southern side a natural gully leading from the sea was enhanced and then extended to form a deep, semi-circular ditch protecting the promontory on the landward side. Material from the ditch was used to construct an earthen rampart, the inner face of which retained by a stone wall.
Excavation suggested that the first phase of the defences were constructed during the early Iron Age. No obvious trace of occupation was found associated with this phase of defence.
Iron Age defended promontory. Excavation showed that the first phase of the defences, constructed during the early Iron Age fell into disrepair and was replaced and enhanced during the late Iron Age. These are the defences visible today. The earlier defences were enlarged, the ditch being excavated to a depth of around 3m and the rampart widened to about 3.5m. The investigations also found four well-constructed stone roundhouses with paved floors and central hearths, which were occupied until 100 AD. A range of personal items was recovered, including a bone comb, a bronze brooch, glass beads and a fragment of a black jet ring and bracelet, as well as weaving and sewing tools. The promontory fort then fell out of use until reoccupied during the Viking Age.
Medieval defended promontory. This substantial, well-defended Iron Age promontory fort was reoccupied duriing the Norse era, when a rectangular building 12.5m by 5m was constructed. A narrow stone bench against the south wall would have served for sitting and sleeping.
No evidence of a hearth was found, implying that the structure was not permanently occupied. The limited evidence for domestic use, coupled with the lack of a hearth, has led to the suggestion that the building formed part of a 'watch and ward' system of coastal defence (which continued until at least the early 17th century), or may have policed a coastal beach market.
Iron Age and medieval defended promontory. A massive bank and ditch forms the defences of this promontory fort. On the southern side a natural gully leading from the sea was enhanced and then extended to form a deep, semi-circular ditch protecting the promontory on the landward side. Material from the ditch was used to construct an earthen rampart, the inner face of which retained by a stone wall.
Excavation showed that the first phase of the defences were constructed during the early Iron Age, but this had fallen into disrepair when it was replaced in a second phase of activity during the late Iron Age, the remains of which can be seen today. The earlier defences were enlarged, the ditch being excavated to a depth of around 3m and the rampart widened to about 3.5m. The investigations also found four stone roundhouses with paved floors and central hearths, which were occupied until 100 AD. A range of personal items was recovered, including a bone comb, a bronze brooch, glass beads and a fragment of a black jet ring and bracelet, as well as weaving and sewing tools.
The promontory fort then fell out of use until the Viking Age, when a rectangular building 12.5m by 5m was constructed. A narrow stone bench against the south wall would have served for sitting and sleeping. No evidence of a hearth was found, implying that the structure was not permanently occupied. The limited evidence for domestic use, coupled with the lack of a hearth, has led to the suggestion that the building served men undertaking watch and ward duties along this stretch of coastline.
A small Wesleyan Methodist chapel which is shown on the 1869 1:2500 scale Ordnance Survey map. The chapel is now closed and in an overgrown, derelict condition.
Prehistoric flint scatter.
A small quantity of worked prehistoric flint was recovered from 'Close y Garey Curragh' by CH Cowley.
No further details concerning the circumstances of the discovery were recorded and the grid reference relates to the centre of the curragh for indicative purposes only.
The antiquary Charles Harry Cowley was an avid collector of worked flint and coarse stone artefacts revealed by agricultural activity, mainly on farms located around Peel, and occasionally from further afield. He was active from 1900 until 1943. His entire collection of artefacts, together with a daybook cataloguing his discoveries, was later donated to Manx National Heritage.
A findspot of a scatter of 'Bann' type Mesolithic flints and a spherical stone, which measured 2 1/2 inches in diameter and may be a slingstone. The finds are from Ballaharra, particularly near 'Bill Sill's Curragh' and were confirmed by B.K. Corlett. They are now held in the Cowley Collection at the Manx Museum.
The site of a post-medieval horse engine. The circular horsewalk is shown on the 1870 1:2500 scale Ordnance Survey map, located at the southern end of the L-shaped building range at the western side of the complex.
A post-medieval brickworks is recorded as working in this area. The precise location is not clear and the grid reference is for indicative purposes only, between the two farms of Close-a-Kewin and West Craig.
The findspot of a prehistoric flint scatter and a bronze palstave axehead. Information supplied by Mr C.J. Joughin, Mr W.H. Kneale of Kinley's Croft, Mr Thos. Gawne, Smith, Ballavarteen, Bride, and Mr W.R. Cowin, C.P., The Geary.
Undated standing stones, burial mounds, pottery and prehistoric worked flint.
The name Cloughen corra ('odd stones') is recorded on an early 18th century deed. The name was applied to a group of stones whose number has gradually diminished to the single survivor standing today. The grid reference relates to the surviving stone.
Lewis' 'Topographical Dictionary of England' (1831) states that there are five stones present. This is confirmed by reminiscence recorded in the 19th century, though perhaps by the end of the same decade it seems that the number had reduced to four, according to the Archaeological Commissioners' report of 1878 when referring to a time 40 years earlier. Oswald's 'Vestigia' of 1860 likewise records four stones (in an arc), but the Ordnance Survey 1:2500 First Edition mapping of 1868 only records two.
JR Bruce of the Manx Museum (of whose manuscript notes the above narrative is a summary) notes a photograph in his possession in 1970, taken in 1907, showing two stones present, and that W Cubbon (director of the Manx Museum 1932-40) told him one of the stones was 'destroyed' c.1919. Bruce himself recalls only ever seeing one stone from 1921 onwards.
The two stones recorded by the OS stood at SC2215171641 and SC2215971634, only the latter of which is still present. The visible portion of the surviving stone is just over 2m high, 0.8m broad and 0.7m thick.
Oswald also records 'A few paces eastward from this there are two low tumuli', in commenting on which in 1930 PMC Kermode (director of the Manx Museum 1922-32), states that one 'could still be traced a few years ago'. Kermode goes on to state that 'probably it was from one of these that the Urn came which is said to have been found at the Standing Stones in 1878.' Kermode appears to be referring to the Archaeological Commissioners' report, but Bruce's manuscript narrative describes sherds of an urn as being ploughed up 'within 100yds SE' of the standing stones. The urn has not been identified within the Manx National Heritage collections, and may not survive.
Together, these observations appear to place up to two possible burial mounds and a possible inhumation, cremation, or earth-fast pot a short distance (and certainly within what was then the same field, OS Field no. 0285) east of the standing stones.
Kermode (1930) also records that worked flints have been recovered: this would appear to relate to finds made by F Swinnerton. Additional flints have been found since.
Modern reconfiguration of the surrounding field boundaries and a trackway has significantly changed the landscape context of this site from that in which most of the antiquarian observations were made, whilst also diminishing the extent to which the remains survive as upstanding features, which together makes their interpretation difficult. The arrangement of the standing stones led Bruce to state that there was 'little doubt' that they represented the remains of the forecourt of a chambered Neolithic tomb, whilst other antiquarian observations are united in assuming that earthworks and the discovery of pottery imply the existence of - probably Bronze Age - burial activity. The recovery of worked flints undoubtedly confirms prehistoric activity in the immediate area, perhaps from as early as the later Mesolithic.
Undated standing stone.
The name Cloughen corra ('odd stones') is recorded on an early 18th century deed. The name was applied to a group of stones whose number has gradually diminished to the single survivor standing today. The grid reference relates to the surviving stone.
Lewis' 'Topographical Dictionary of England' (1831) states that there are five stones present. This is confirmed by reminiscence recorded in the 19th century, though perhaps by the end of the same decade it seems that the number had reduced to four, according to the Archaeological Commissioners' report of 1878 when referring to a time 40 years earlier. Oswald's 'Vestigia' of 1860 likewise records four stones (in an arc), but the Ordnance Survey 1:2500 First Edition mapping of 1868 only records two.
JR Bruce of the Manx Museum (of whose manuscript notes the above narrative is a summary) notes a photograph in his possession in 1970, taken in 1907, showing two stones present, and that W Cubbon (director of the Manx Museum 1932-40) told him one of the stones was 'destroyed' c.1919. Bruce himself recalls only ever seeing one stone from 1921 onwards.
The surviving stone stands at SC2215971634. The visible portion is just over 2m high, 0.8m broad and 0.7m thick.
Modern reconfiguration of the surrounding field boundaries and a trackway has significantly changed the landscape context of this site from that in which most of the antiquarian observations were made, whilst also diminishing the extent to which the remains survive as upstanding features, which together makes their interpretation difficult. The arrangement of the standing stones led Bruce to state that there was 'little doubt' that they represented the remains of the forecourt of a chambered Neolithic tomb.
Site of undated standing stone.
The name Cloughen corra ('odd stones') is recorded on an early 18th century deed. The name was applied to a group of stones whose number has gradually diminished to the single survivor standing today. The grid reference relates to the site of the stone recorded by the Ordnance Survey in 1868 but subsequently destroyed.
Lewis' 'Topographical Dictionary of England' (1831) states that there are five stones present. This is confirmed by reminiscence recorded in the 19th century, though perhaps by the end of the same decade it seems that the number had reduced to four, according to the Archaeological Commissioners' report of 1878 when referring to a time 40 years earlier. Oswald's 'Vestigia' of 1860 likewise records four stones (in an arc), but the Ordnance Survey 1:2500 First Edition mapping of 1868 only records two.
JR Bruce of the Manx Museum (of whose manuscript notes the above narrative is a summary) notes a photograph in his possession in 1970, taken in 1907, showing two stones present, and that W Cubbon (director of the Manx Museum 1932-40) told him one of the stones was 'destroyed' c.1919. Bruce himself recalls only ever seeing one stone from 1921 onwards.
The site of the stone Cubbon described to Bruce as destroyed must be the second of the two recorded by the OS, at SC2215171641.
Modern reconfiguration of the surrounding field boundaries and a trackway has significantly changed the landscape context of this site from that in which most of the antiquarian observations were made, whilst also diminishing the extent to which the remains survive as upstanding features, which together makes their interpretation difficult. The arrangement of the standing stones led Bruce to state that there was 'little doubt' that they represented the remains of the forecourt of a chambered Neolithic tomb.
Undated burial mounds.
The name Cloughen corra ('odd stones') is recorded on an early 18th century deed. The name was applied to a group of stones whose number has gradually diminished to the single survivor standing today.
Oswald's 'Vestigia' of 1860 records 'A few paces eastward from this (i.e. of the standing stones) there are two low tumuli'. In commenting on Oswald's observation in 1930 PMC Kermode (director of the Manx Museum 1922-32), states that one mound 'could still be traced a few years ago'.
No obvious signs of mounds survive today to the east of the standing stone, in the absence of which the grid reference provided refers to the centre of the former field existing when Oswald noted their presence.
Kermode goes on to state that 'probably it was from one of these that the Urn came which is said to have been found at the Standing Stones in 1878.' Kermode appears to be referring to the Archaeological Commissioners' report, but manuscript notes recorded by JR Bruce of the Manx Museum describe only sherds of an urn as being ploughed up 'within 100yds SE' of the standing stones. The urn has not been identified within the Manx National Heritage collections, and may not survive.
Together, these observations appear to place up to two possible burial mounds and a possible inhumation, cremation, or earth-fast pot a short distance (and certainly within what was then the same field, OS Field no. 0285) east of the standing stones. The assumption made by these antiquarian observers is that the earthworks and the discovery of pottery imply the existence of - probably Bronze Age - burial activity.
Modern reconfiguration of the surrounding field boundaries and a trackway has significantly changed the landscape context of this site from that in which most of the antiquarian observations were made, whilst also diminishing the extent to which the remains survive as upstanding features, which together makes their interpretation difficult.
Prehistoric worked flint.
The name Cloughen corra ('odd stones') is recorded on an early 18th century deed. The name was applied to a group of stones whose number has gradually diminished to the single survivor standing today.
PMC Kermode (director of the Manx Museum 1922-32) recorded in 1930 that worked flints have been recovered: this would appear to relate to finds made by F Swinnerton. Additional flints have been found since. The grid reference relates to the centre of the field existing at the time when worked flint was first collected in the vicinity of the upstanding remains.
Modern reconfiguration of the surrounding field boundaries and a trackway has significantly changed the landscape context of this site from that in which most of the antiquarian observations were made, whilst also diminishing the extent to which the remains survive as upstanding features, which together makes their interpretation difficult. The arrangement of the standing stones has led to the suggestion that they represented the remains of the forecourt of a chambered Neolithic tomb, whilst other antiquarian observations are united in assuming that earthworks and the discovery of pottery imply the existence of - probably Bronze Age - burial activity.
The recovery of worked flints undoubtedly confirms prehistoric activity in the immediate area, perhaps from as early as the later Mesolithic.
Worked flints from the site are in the Manx National Heritage collections, accession nos. 1954-0504 and 1974-0056.
A two-storey house consists of a central cement render/clap board covered brick structure with a stone extension on one side and a single storey stone conversion on the other side. The central portion has an asbestos tile roof, the extension a flat roof and the conversion a slate pitched roof. The windows are of differing proportions in each section. No interior inspection was made. The house is 90% less than 5 years old, with equivalent repair. There would appear to be no reason to list this building for preservation.
