Rodley Tomb Stone?

Si · Post by Si » Thu 10 Jan, 2008 5:04 pm

FarnleyBloke wrote: Si wrote: FarnleyBloke wrote: Si wrote: Yes LS1. That seems most likely. I think we can rule out grave markers (as there are two - or more? - identical) or re-used stones. Odd that the Rodley one doesn't appear to be on a boundary, though. Can anyone check the new stone on old maps? Where is it exactly? Si, on the 1852 map there is a municipal boundary marked close by but not quite where the stone is. On the 1892 map there is a small BS noted which i would assume stands for boundary stone but these are dotted quite frequently so i may be wrong. It's on Pudsey Road on the right just past a small disused quarry if you know the area. Farnleybloke - do you mean the old quarry going up to Hough Side? I'm going that way today, so will have a look. Yes, I know that area pretty well. The Rodley one does look a bit like No 2. If they mark the same boundary maybe it's Pudsey's boundary, them being so far apart (could be loads of others waiting to be discovered) - it's all supposition, though! I like a good mystery! Hi SiSorry i didn't get back to you yesterday. Yes it is that quarry. There are some other marks on it but it was legging it down when i took the pic so i didn't want to hang sround and work out what they were!Could the TDC just be Town District Council and the S. ST. be the significant part. My original thoughts were also Stanningley but Hough Side is more the border between Bramley and Pudsey. Yes, there is another marking on the Hough Side stone. It's a surveyors mark as discussed on another thread (a horizontal line with an arrow beneath it.) Coincidentally, I saw one of these on the door post of The Yeoman pub in Otley yesterday.

Si · Post by Si » Thu 10 Jan, 2008 5:07 pm

FarnleyBloke wrote: Si wrote: FarnleyBloke wrote: Si wrote: Yes LS1. That seems most likely. I think we can rule out grave markers (as there are two - or more? - identical) or re-used stones. Odd that the Rodley one doesn't appear to be on a boundary, though. Can anyone check the new stone on old maps? Where is it exactly? Si, on the 1852 map there is a municipal boundary marked close by but not quite where the stone is. On the 1892 map there is a small BS noted which i would assume stands for boundary stone but these are dotted quite frequently so i may be wrong. It's on Pudsey Road on the right just past a small disused quarry if you know the area. Farnleybloke - do you mean the old quarry going up to Hough Side? I'm going that way today, so will have a look. Yes, I know that area pretty well. The Rodley one does look a bit like No 2. If they mark the same boundary maybe it's Pudsey's boundary, them being so far apart (could be loads of others waiting to be discovered) - it's all supposition, though! I like a good mystery! Hi SiSorry i didn't get back to you yesterday. Yes it is that quarry. There are some other marks on it but it was legging it down when i took the pic so i didn't want to hang sround and work out what they were!Could the TDC just be Town District Council and the S. ST. be the significant part. My original thoughts were also Stanningley but Hough Side is more the border between Bramley and Pudsey.

Post by **chameleon** » Thu 10 Jan, 2008 9:53 pm

Si -'Yes, there is another marking on the Hough Side stone. It's a surveyors mark as discussed on another thread (a horizontal line with an arrow beneath it.) Coincidentally, I saw one of these on the door post of The Yeoman pub in Otley yesterday.'If it has a Bench Mark carved on it, it is likely that it has been there for some time, they were only ever included on features or structures which were at the time considered permanent, to provide a long term reference point of known height.I think this is co-incidental to the stone rather than its purpose though, Ican't relate anything else about them with cartography or old style surveying.

Si · Post by Si » Fri 11 Jan, 2008 9:09 am

I think you're right, Chameleon. The mark was added later. However, I don't know how accurate the surveying techniques were, but the stone is at a slightly drunk angle!

robster · Post by **robster** » Fri 25 Jan, 2008 11:15 pm

Si wrote: I don't think it's a grave stone. By 1862, gravestones were much like they are now, with more information. My guess is it's some sort of boundary marker, which is why it hasn't been moved. The letters don't seem to have any significance though. i think its just a border stone as the stone is outside my front window i trim the bushes round it every year as i think it s a part of our history and should be seen by all who are intrested in it

Steve Jones · Post by **Steve Jones** » Sat 26 Jan, 2008 12:45 am

just a thought but might these possibly be parish boundary stones? i am not familiar with the parishes in the area so look to locals. beating the bounds used to be regular occasion in many parishs up to WW 1. choir boys were taken around and bumped (gently hit against boundary stones) or lightly whipped so that they would remember the parish markers, these were very important in terms of rents, tyhes etc to a parish. Was there a perambulation of redley in 1862 by any chance? details might be in any local papers of the time.just a thought.

robster · Post by **robster** » Sat 26 Jan, 2008 10:48 am

robster wrote: Si wrote: I don't think it's a grave stone. By 1862, gravestones were much like they are now, with more information. My guess is it's some sort of boundary marker, which is why it hasn't been moved. The letters don't seem to have any significance though. i think its just a boudary stone as the stone is outside my front window i trim the bushes round it every year as i think it s a part of our history and should be seen by all who are intrested in it

TelBoy · Post by **TelBoy** » Thu 12 Jun, 2008 12:46 pm

I’m a bit late picking up on this thread and I’m ashamed to say that although I live only a few minutes walk away from the Baptist burial ground and I have walked passed it on numerous occasions I have never taken the time to investigate it and I have never spotted the mystery standing stone. However, this piece of Farsley’s history looks to be in jeopardy as I understand the Baptists have put the site up for sale. A couple of agents are advertising the site on the net one of them stating that a manse once occupied the eastern end and that it may be possible to rebuild this (with planning consent). They also state that the larger site “may be suitable for longer term redevelopment” and we all know what that means.Interestingly they note that that the burial site is private and un-consecrated (making redevelopment easier I suppose).This is all very sad as the burial ground is not only interesting historically (containing all those Farsley worthies) but it physically connects Coal Hill with Farsley (elsewhere housing has severed this connection) and, as mentioned earlier in the thread, it has become a wild life haven for deer and foxes etc.

bramley13 · Post by **bramley13** » Sun 28 Sep, 2008 10:02 pm

i was looking at this landmark today,amazing thing.when the flats houses were built, the council or planning office must know what this stone/ marker is.there will be records of this in the planning office,otherwise it would not have been left there.

Si · Post by Si » Mon 29 Sep, 2008 11:45 am

I noticed the other day that there is another stone set in the pavement on Roker Lane, Pudsey, opposite the junction with Littlemoor Road. I haven't had chance to have a closer look at it yet, but will take a snap next time I'm passing.