|Details of stone circle on Pastscape
[SY 59628648] "Small stone circle." (1)
Eighteen stones. The eastern seven form an arc, probably in situ, which would form a circle with a diameter of 43 ft. (2)
Stone Circle [O.E.] (3) Scheduled Ancient Monument: Hampton stone circle. (4)
A circle of sarsen stone, incomplete and cut across from N-S by a high hedge and bank, separating three westerly stones from thirteen others. Of the eastern ones ten are probably in their original positions, suggesting an original diameter of 35 ft for the circle. The stones are irregularly placed, and being of cube-like shapes it is impossible to decide whether they are recumbent or upright though probably the latter. [Plan shows 16 stones all told]. (5)
SY 59618650. The number of stones in the circle is not 13 as stated in Auth 6, but 15 on the east side of the hedge and 3 on the west side ofthe hedge. The stones are of sarsen and conglomerate and average 0.5m high. Most are of cube shape, but at least two are elongated and prostrate.
Seven stones of the circle form an arc on the eastern half of the site, which suggests that they are in their original positions. From this the circles diameter was probably c.11.0m. The elongated stone at the extreme N.W. of the site and the two stones to the east of it, appear to have been displaced slightly to the north.
The five other stones on the east side of the hedge and the three on the west side are all displaced, perhaps during the construction of a low field bank from which the hedge stems.
The circle does not seem likely to suffer further damage. It is set in an area of pasture of a very stoney nature and unsuitable for ploughing. (7) Surveyed on field document. (8)
Mr. R.N.R. Peers of the Dorset N H and A Soc. reported to the Chief Inspector of Ancient Monuments that the stones to the west of the hedge bisecting the Circle [3 stones in all] had recently been removed. The stones were placed in the hedgerow and the field appeared to have been ploughed for the first time. To the Police, Mr. Swaffield the tenant, denied responsibility for removing the stones, and the Director of Public Prosecutions subsequently did not feel able to effect a prosecution. Two things are now being considered:- the necessity for an excavation and the urgent need for the resiting of the stones. (9)
Posted by Chance
29th March 2016ce