SOME NOTES ON ARBOR LOW. 99 
that is ahout a hundred and fifty years from the present time. 
On the question of the object of the structure, he concludes that it 
was either a sepulchre or a temple, with a decided preference for 
the latter theory. 
Mr. Thomas Bateman, the well-known antiquary of Lomber- 
dale House, published an account of Arbor Low circle in 1848,* 
and treated further and with more detail of the exploration of its 
adjacent tumuli in a later work published in 1861.t The follow- 
ing is the most important part of the description of this structure 
as given by Mr. Bateman, and it is right that you should have 
here placed before you the theories of that careful mound-digger, 
although I shall directly combat his conclusions:—‘‘ The area 
encompassed by the ditch is about fifty yards in diameter and of a 
circular form; though, from a little declination of the ground 
towards the north, it appears somewhat elliptical when viewed 
from particular points. The stones which compose the circle are 
rough, unhewn masses of limestone, apparently thirty in number ; 
but this cannot be determined with certainty, as several of them 
are broken; most of them are from six to eight feet in length, 
and three or four broad in the widest part; their thickness is 
more variable, and their respective shapes are different and inde- 
scribable. They all lie upon the ground, many in an oblique 
position, but the opinion that has prevailed, of the narrowest end 
of each being pointed towards the centre, in order to represent 
the rays of the sun, and prove that luminary to have been the 
object of worship, must have arisen from inaccurate observation, 
for they almost as frequently point towards the ditch as otherwise ; 
whether they ever stood upright, as most of the stones of Druidical 
circles do, is an inquiry not easy to determine, though Mr. Pil- 
kington was informed that a very old man, living in Middleton, 
remembered, when a boy, to have seen them standing obliquely 
on one end. This secondary kind of evidence does not seem 
entitled to much credit, as the soil at the basis of the stones does 
* Vestiges of the Antiquities of Derbyshire, pp. 109—I1I. 
+ Ten Years Digging in Celtic and Saxon Grave Hills, pp. 17—20. 
