Just as some of the previous commentators have said, I’ve had varied reactions to this stone circle. One time before I didn;t really like it at all, possibly because the sight lines are blocked by trees. This time round visiting with two friends, I quite enjoyed myself. Do wish I’d stood in the middle of the cairn and will have to do that next time.
The split recumbent is a good conversation point, as is the alleged line of cupmarks on a stone, we could only find two. There are three different info boards now, the old one at the entrance saying 312 burials, the new one inside saying 31? I do like the burial cist board with the three ravers, hands in the air and feathers in the hair giving it their all for the DJ.
However, I remain slightly annoyed by the recent gravestone right at the northwest edge of the site, just inside the fallen fence. I’m also a bit annoyed that it irks me, but it’s not cool. There’s a small headstone and two flower pots. “E. Garland 1941-2014” – is it a former akela? I normally don’t like this form of argument but ... what if everyone did this? I wouldn’t mind a plaque on a tree outside the field or ashes being scattered, and yes it does seem to be a site which had a funerary function, but a gravestone right on the edge of the scheduled monument is just disrespectful for me. The lack of prior mention makes me think it hasn’t been there long, although I did see it last year already.
As a final point, there’s a pile of stones in the southern corner of the field which I felt drawn to. When you go stand on them, it might actually be bedrock. If the grass was stripped off and everywhere was bedrock this site would have a very different feel, it would be a lot more brutal.
Visited today, 150925.