Extract from a letter from the Cumbria County Archaeologist

September 2005

" . . . I have reviewed your web article and looked at the evidence. The popping stone is shown on the 1st edition OS map of the later 1860s when it is marked as a feature of interest but not as an antiquity. All the evidence thus far indicates that it only became a feature of interest in the mid-later 19th century. I would regard the stones as having invented foklore traditions associated with them (including links to Scott) by people involved with the local spa, a tourism scam if you like. The stones are not marked on Donald's county map of 1774, though Gilsland Spa is."

"I agree with the likely place-name derivation if the stones were named in the distant past but I would suggest checking the English Place Name Society county volume for Cumberland as this may contain the earliest known dated reference to the stones. Have you checked the later 18th century antiquarian histories for references, Nicholson and Burn or Hutchinson? If they also fail to mention it then I suggest it was not of any antiquarian interest. The other source to check will be pre OS maps such as tithe or estate maps which might mark the stones. A search through local 19th century newspapers might also be productive to trace the development of the folklore tradition and to see just who was developing it."

"Whilst I am not inclined on the evidence to date to consider that these stones constitute some form of prehistoric site, as a possible 19th century 'folly' they will still merit inclusion on the Historic Environment Record and as such I thank you for bringing this site to my attention."

Regards

Richard Newman

My Comment:

A fair assessment on the evidence available, but still begs the question as to why Scott and the Victorian developers should have chosen the Popping Stone if it was not already a focus of folklore.

Hodgson mentions it, and I think he qualifies ! I'm actually not too interested in whether the antiquarians were interested in it. They had a narrow view of what was proper history, and any eighteenth century antiquarians who did hear about it probably considered it too coarse to be dignified as an antiquity, especially if it could not be linked to the Romans, Danes or Druids.