Gwynedd Archaeological
Trust Regional Historic Environment Record
Henblas Burial Chamber, Llangristiolus
Primary Reference Number (PRN) : 2160 Trust : Gwynedd Community : Llangristiolus Unitary authority : Ynys Mon NGR : SH42577197 Site Type (preferred type first) : NEOLITHIC CHAMBERED TOMB Status : Scheduled Monument
Description : It has long been a question whether the dolmen at Henblas is a natural collection of boulders or a man-made monument. Mr. Edward Greenly in a geological survey of the island inspected the monument and found on the underside of the capstone glacial striae or ice scratching. This in itself would lead to the supposition that the stones had been turned over, but he also observed that these striae did not correspond with the direction of the ice drift, showing that the stone had also been turned round when it was raised to its present position. The group consists of 3 stones: the NE stone is 13ft 6 inches and 50ft in circumference at the base, and the SW stone is 10ft high and 55ft in circumference at the base. The capstone was 13ft by 13ft 9 inches and 4ft thick in places. Two rubble stones wedged in between the edge of the capstone and one of the supporters suggested that it had all been covered over once. A stone 5ft high and 6ft wide once stood four or five paces in front of the SW upright and may have formed part of a gallery. The direct outlook between the two large stones is due east, All three stones are of hard quartzite which occurs in the district. <1>
A group of three very large blocks of stone, two of which are conical and rest on their bases. It is practically certain that the position of the two upright blocks is due to natural causes, but glacial striae on the underside of the third indicate that this has been moved by human agency. Although this group as a whole is mainly natural, it may have been adapted for use as a burial place and it can not be classified until properly examined. (RCAHMW, 1937)
SH 42577197. A group of stones as described, apparently natural although possibly utilised as RCAHM suggested. <3>
Collection of three colossal boulders the largest being 4 x 3.5 x 4.5m high. Two boulders are blocky and one is a very large flat slab leaning on one of the other stones. It is possible that it was once raised up on the other stone as well. A smaller stone beneath southern side could have sheared off the larger rock. In conclusion the two larger stones are almost certainly natural - The capstone is also probably natural although this could have been used to form a chambered tomb. Siting on a slight to moderate hillslope above the Cefni. (Smith, 2003)
“We here found three immense stones two of them above fifteen feet high and nearly the same in width standing upright in the ground, another of a flatter form leant against them.” (Skinner, 1802) (Sketch on p. 36).
A descriptive account of Cambrian Archaeological Association’s visit to the site in August 1870 (Griffith 1870).
Possible remnant of megalithic burial chamber south of the mansion at Henblas Llangristioulus, Anglesey. 2 remaining stones, of 'massive dimensions' and 'grotesquely irregular and broken' outline, and of 'gray and white substance, which is a quartzose compound of the heaviest and hardest description'. The stone on the N-E side is 13 and a half feet high, with a circumference of 50 feet at its base (Prichard 1866, 466).
The S-W stone is 10 feet high and has a circumference of 55 feet. The interval between them with an easterly aspect may have been the original entrance to the chamber. The roof stone 'has fallen towards the north-west and rests obliquely' (Prichard 1866, 467), and short of reaching the S-W supporter is 'propped up in this direction by a comparatively smaller stone within the chamber'. This 'curiously placed stone', in a forward position can be accounted for by the assumption that it was part of a larger block which 'gave way with other sustaining parts of the cromlech, and, having fallen into the chamber, arrested the cap-stone in its downward course'. The cap-stone is a 'surprisingly perfect slab', and its placing has not been noticed in other similar structures by the author: 'its flattest and most perfect table-surface is uppermost, and its more rugged and projecting or convex side placed lowermost, so as to form the inner roof of the cell; the reverse, as is well known, being almost invariably the case'. The explanation for this is the possibility of the stones being moved to the site upon rollers. Two small rubble stones with soil are 'firmly wedged between the cap-stone and the N-E supporter, where they touch each other', which could suggest a mound possibly covered the structure (Prichard 1866, 468).
The stones must have been moved from a distance of 'not less than half a mile, there being no material of a similar character nearer to the spot.' An account given by a local farmer suggests another stone about 5 feet high and 6 in diameter, situated a few paces farther than the S-W structure and in 'perfect line with the S-W side of the chamber entrance'. The farmer's father broke up and removed a large stone from the N-S side of the cromlech, which supposedly was one of the supporters. The finds near the cromlech were a ring of blue glass, a cinerary urn and a slab of freestone, underneath which ashes were deposited (Prichard 1866, 470).
Discussion on the possibility that the Henblas cromlech was part of a grander assemblage, and that the stones not visible at the time might have been buried by modern farmers because they 'encumbered the ground'. The author gives the example of a large rock being buried, as opposed to disposed of, in Sussex, as the owner of the land believed the stone to be 'Druidic'. Other rocks from the same site have been used for the construction of the Victoria fountain on the Brighton Steyne. The author suggests the stones from the site in Anglesey may have been used in similar fashion (H.L.J. 1866, 471).
Another issue brought into discussion is the provenience of the stones in the first place, since they were clearly not of local material, as well as the probability that the positioning of the capstone was not done 'purely accidental; that is to say, due to natural causes alone', and that human agency must have been involved (H.L.J 1866, 472).
