The Modern Antiquarian. Stone Circles, Ancient Sites, Neolithic Monuments, Ancient Monuments, Prehistoric Sites, Megalithic MysteriesThe Modern Antiquarian


Cnoc Cailliche

Standing Stone / Menhir

Also known as:
  • Wheedlemont
  • Cnoc Cailleach

Nearest Town:Huntly (14km NNE)
OS Ref (GB):   NJ473261 / Sheet: 37
Latitude:57° 19' 20.82" N
Longitude:   2° 52' 30.73" W

Added by Merrick

Discussion Topics0 discussions
Start a topic

Show map   (inline Google Map)


Add fieldnotes Add fieldnotes
Also known as Wheedlemont Hill, this hill has caught our attention several times, standing out in the landscape or poking up over another hill with a distinctive shape similar to that of The Barmkyn and Barmekin Hill. The interest has been piqued by finding the bit in the Modern Antiquarian that what the OS map calls a 'fort' at the summit is - even according to official HMSO books - not a fort but a ritual causewayed enclosure.

The OS map marks a single standing stone at the foot of the hill, Modern Antiquarian calls it the remains of a circle, but says it was lost in deep crop on the field trip so they left it alone. Today the stones are clear in cropped cattle pasture.

The farmer is (as they've all been) very friendly and absolutely fine about us visiting the stones. I really do like having permission, it frees you to really look around, walk around, poke around in the hedges, get the map and spread it out and generally take your time and get a true vibe of the site. Ones where we've not had permission always give me a background unease, like trying to have a conversation on a car journey when the petrol warning light's been on for 10 minutes.

The stones do indeed appear to be two, and suggest themselves as the remains of a circle, and our initial feeling is one of Modern Antiquarian: 1, OS: nil. The fallen and moved stone lies on top of some small stones 20 or 30 metres from the solitary stander that has the Batman ear shape and NW/SE axis that suggests it as a flanker. The fallen stone is larger and is flat on one side which would suggest it as the recumbent except that it would've only been two foot high, so this seems unlikely. It may even be unrelated field clearance and the OS map is right.

The standing stone has an unweathered look on the 'inside' and a lack of lichens like the side of a flanker that was partially protected from the elements by a recumbent. However, the lack of lichens on the lower inside of a stone may not be due to the protection of a recumbent; it's more likely to be the result of being a favourite rubbing post for itchy-arsed livestock. And indeed in this case further examination shows a certain polishedness on the corners that is clearly the work of extensive buffing by cows arses.
Posted by Merrick
7th August 2000ce


Add miscellaneous Add miscellaneous
I believe the grid reference of this site is incorrect: I think it is the standing stone marked at NJ479 266 as the description of the site does match that of RCAHMS. Chris Posted by Chris
29th September 2006ce