39. 
renderings being Brunandune, Brunberik, Brunford and Brumly. 
There are a host of places whose claims rest simply upon some 
similarity of the spelling. The whole of these may be dismissed 
without further consideration, for, as Mr. Hardwick says: “ the 
mere identity of the name Brunanburgh, in some corrupted form, 
though important, is insufficient without corroborative evidence, 
simply because the names of so many places in various parts of 
the country admit of such derivation.”’ The Lecturer agreed with 
Mr. Hardwick. He only knew of three or four cases in which a 
decided attempt had been made to substantiate the claims of any 
particular locality. In the Winchester volume of the British 
Archeological Association, Mr. Hesleden believes that he has 
traced the site of the battle south of the Humber at Barton, in 
Lincolnshire. Mr. Hesleden’s evidence is tar from conclusive, 
and leaves the matter still undecided. The best papers which 
have been written on the subject are those by the late Mr. T. T. 
Wilkinson, and Mr. Charles Hardwick of Preston. The paper 
by the former will be found included in the four volumes of the 
«Transactions of the Lancashire and Cheshire Historical Society,” 
and that by the latter in the papers of the Manchester Literary 
Club, 1878. He had carefully read these papers, and collated 
evidence from various sources, and was bound to say that the 
most conclusive evidence yet brought to bear upon this matter 
seemed to be strongly corroborative of the neighbourhood of 
Burnley having been the site of the conflict. Mr. Hardwick, in 
his paper (in which he tried to show that Cuerdale, near Preston 
is the battle site), entirely ignored the one written by Mr. I’. T. 
Wilkinson, and dismissed the claims of the Burnley site, with only 
scant reference. ‘The Lecturer felt it to be his duty to show that 
Mr. Hardwick’s paper was only ‘corroborative evidence” of 
Burnley's claim. In the first place Mr. Hardwick, after saying 
that the identification of the name Brunanburgh, in some 
corrupted form, was not sufficient evidence, based almost the 
whole of his arguments upon nomenclature of his district, the 
only ‘‘ corroborative evidence ’’ being the find of the Cuerdale 
hoard in 1840. As had been pointed out, the mere evidence of 
the name was not conclusive ; but it was of some service as serv- 
ing to draw attention to the probable site. Thename Brunanburgh 
had been variously interpreted, but the most commonly accepted 
etymology is that it means the place of springs, His own 
opinion was that the neighbourhood of Worsthorne and Mere- 
clough marks the site of the battle, and near here, in the middle 
of a field is a large block of stone, known as the “ Battle Stone.”’ 
All the evidence which has hitherto been collected corroborates 
this opinion. The * Battle Stone” is situate a short distance 
south-east of the village of Mereclough, and answers admirably to 
requirements of the situation of the battle. If Brunanburgh 
means the place of springs, here was the very locality, for here 
