Rodley Tomb Stone?

Si · Post by Si » Mon 10 Dec, 2007 8:51 am

If it's not a boundary, does it mark a gas main, or water pipes/drains?

FarnleyBloke · Post by **FarnleyBloke** » Mon 10 Dec, 2007 7:38 pm

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.

LS13 · Post by **LS13** » Mon 10 Dec, 2007 8:38 pm

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. But if they're both boundary stones, wouldnt they be marking different boundaries, so presumably would have different initials on, whereas these have exactly the same letters??

LS1 · Post by **LS1** » Mon 10 Dec, 2007 8:50 pm

Looking on the first pic on the thread, it looks like the N could stand for the abreviation of Number when it is written "No" with the O next to the top of the N rather than at the bottom.It also may look like there is a faint 2 after it. If this is the case then could there be a series of these numberd for some specific reason?

LS13 · Post by **LS13** » Mon 10 Dec, 2007 9:08 pm

LS1 wrote: Looking on the first pic on the thread, it looks like the N could stand for the abreviation of Number when it is written "No" with the O next to the top of the N rather than at the bottom.It also may look like there is a faint 2 after it. If this is the case then could there be a series of these numberd for some specific reason? I'll have a look when I pass the Rodley one tomorrow and see if i can make out anymore letters or numbers.

Si · Post by Si » Tue 11 Dec, 2007 9:16 am

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!

Si · Post by Si » Tue 11 Dec, 2007 10:48 am

This mystery reminds me of a strange structure on Woodhall Road, just down from Calverley Golf Club, towards Thornbury roundabout. The field retaining wall is cut back, creating a small square space. In the middle, on the ground, is a perfectly cut stone cube with turned circles cut in two opposing sides. Any ideas? I'll try and get a picture and start a new thread.

AliceCake · Post by **AliceCake** » Tue 11 Dec, 2007 11:03 am

I went to junior school in Farsley and Rodley, and I'm pretty sure, the more I think about it, that our teacher told us they were the boundary stones for the pudsey area. Nice place to go to school - loads of dead old stuff and interesting history...

Si · Post by Si » Tue 11 Dec, 2007 11:25 am

Maybe we're right, then. Still, it would be nice to know the significance of S.ST.T.D.C.1862.Dead old stuff?...were they the teachers, then, Alice Cake?!

LS1 · Post by **LS1** » Tue 11 Dec, 2007 11:44 am

Have a look at this link. http://www.calverley.info/stan_map.htmIt looks like there were some problems with the way stanningley sat with pudsey, and parliamentary boundaries etc. I wonder if the markers are there to distinguish what area is what, and the ST is short for Stanningley?????