Bowermanโs Nose
This entry was originally posted on my Facebook page, where I wanted to post a photograph of Bowermanโs Nose with a little bit more information than I usually do - as per usual I got bogged down in research and it eventually flicked a switch thatโs been needing flicking for some time ๐คฃ
Below is pretty much the original post verbatim โฆ though I do intend to add to it and embellish it in the future โฆ also I plan to update it with any more information I can dig up!
Bowerman's Nose - shot on a crappy Pentax 110 lens adapted for my Sony a7r ... I quite like the effect ... do you know the legend behind the name?
As with most myths and legends there seems to be little logic or even the pretense of coherence between the various lines of thought ... one idea revolves around the belief the stack of rocks was some kind of Rock Idol (and we're not talking Jimi Hendrix here) ... commentators even suggesting that Druids carved the stones to this shape ๐
This idea seems to be prevalent in the early nineteenth century - drawing a lot of weight from Plymouth born poet Nicholas Toms Carrington in his "Dartmoor" poem ... circa 1834
"๐๐ฏ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ท๐ฆ๐ณ๐บ ๐ฆ๐ฅ๐จ๐ฆ
๐๐ง ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ท๐ข๐ด๐ต ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ฐ๐ณ๐ญ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ, ๐ด๐ต๐ข๐ณ๐ต๐ญ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ ๐ฆ๐ท๐ฆ๐ณ๐บ ๐ฆ๐บ๐ฆ,
๐ ๐ด๐ฉ๐ข๐ฑ๐ฆ ๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ฐ๐ณ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ด ๐ณ๐ช๐ด๐ฆ๐ด ! ๐๐ช๐จ๐ฉ ๐ช๐ต ๐ต๐ฐ๐ธ๐ฆ๐ณ๐ด
๐๐ฃ๐ฐ๐ท๐ฆ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ฉ๐ช๐ญ๐ญ'๐ด ๐ฃ๐ฐ๐ญ๐ฅ ๐ฃ๐ณ๐ฐ๐ธ, ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ, ๐ด๐ฆ๐ฆ๐ฏ ๐ง๐ณ๐ฐ๐ฎ ๐ง๐ข๐ณ.
๐๐ด๐ด๐ถ๐ฎ๐ฆ๐ด ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ฉ๐ถ๐ฎ๐ข๐ฏ ๐ง๐ฐ๐ณ๐ฎ ; - ๐ข ๐๐ณ๐ข๐ฏ๐ช๐ต๐ฆ ๐๐ฐ๐ฅ !
- ๐๐ฐ ๐ธ๐ฉ๐ฐ๐ฎ, ๐ช๐ฏ ๐ฅ๐ข๐บ๐ด ๐ญ๐ฐ๐ฏ๐จ ๐ง๐ญ๐ฐ๐ธ๐ฏ, ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ด๐ถ๐ฑ๐ฑ๐ญ๐ช๐ข๐ฏ๐ต ๐ฌ๐ฏ๐ฆ๐ฆ
๐๐ฏ ๐ต๐ณ๐ฆ๐ฎ๐ฃ๐ญ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ ๐ฉ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐ข๐จ๐ฆ ๐ฃ๐ฐ๐ธ'๐ฅ. ๐๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ฉ๐ข๐ฎ๐ญ๐ฆ๐ต๐ด ๐ฏ๐ฆ๐ข๐ณ
๐๐ข๐ท๐ฆ ๐ญ๐ฆ๐จ๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ฅ๐ด ๐ณ๐ถ๐ฅ๐ฆ ๐ค๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ฏ๐ฆ๐ค๐ต๐ฆ๐ฅ ๐ธ๐ช๐ต๐ฉ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ด๐ฑ๐ฐ๐ต,
(๐๐ช๐ญ๐ฅ ๐ด๐ธ๐ฆ๐ฑ๐ต ๐ฃ๐บ ๐ฆ๐ท๐ฆ๐ณ๐บ ๐ธ๐ช๐ฏ๐ฅ,) ๐ฐ๐ฏ ๐ธ๐ฉ๐ช๐ค๐ฉ ๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ด๐ต๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ๐ด
- ๐๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐๐ช๐ข๐ฏ๐ต ๐ฐ๐ง ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐๐ฐ๐ฐ๐ณ."
Carrington himself, writing in the notes to his poem says;
"๐โ๐๐ ๐๐ ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ข๐ ๐๐๐ ๐ ๐๐ ๐ ๐ก๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ข๐๐๐ ๐ป๐๐๐โ๐๐ ๐ท๐๐ค๐ ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ก๐๐, ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐ก๐ ๐ โ๐๐๐โ๐ก ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐ ๐กโ๐๐ 30 ๐๐๐๐ก. ๐ด๐ก ๐ ๐๐๐ ๐ก๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ก ๐ค๐๐๐๐ ๐กโ๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐ ๐๐ข๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐ก๐๐ ๐๐๐๐ข๐๐, ๐๐ข๐ก, ๐๐ ๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐โ, ๐๐ก ๐๐ ๐๐๐ข๐๐ ๐ก๐ ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐ก ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐ก๐, ๐๐๐๐๐๐ข๐๐๐๐๐ฆ ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐๐๐โ ๐๐กโ๐๐. ๐ผ๐ก ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ฆ ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐ ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐, ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐กโ๐ ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐ต๐๐ค๐๐๐๐๐'๐ ๐๐๐ ๐, ๐๐ ๐คโ๐๐โ ๐๐๐๐ ๐กโ๐๐๐ ๐ค๐๐ ๐ ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐๐ ๐กโ๐ ๐ถ๐๐๐๐ข๐๐๐๐'๐ ๐ก๐๐๐, ๐คโ๐ ๐๐๐ฃ๐๐ ๐๐ก ๐ป๐ข๐๐ก๐๐ ๐๐ ๐ป๐๐ข๐๐๐ก๐๐ ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ก๐๐. ๐ผ๐ ๐กโ๐ ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ค๐ ๐ต๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ก๐ ๐๐๐ฃ๐๐ ๐ก๐๐๐ ๐ท๐. ๐ต๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ โ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐. ๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ค๐๐๐ ๐๐๐กโ ๐ ๐ก๐๐ข๐๐ ๐๐ก ๐๐๐๐ ๐ค๐๐กโ ๐กโ๐ ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐ก๐ ๐๐๐๐ ๐ก๐ ๐กโ๐ ๐ธ๐๐ฆ๐๐ก๐๐๐ ๐๐โ๐๐๐ฅ ๐๐ ๐ ๐๐ข๐ก๐๐๐๐ก๐๐ ๐ ๐ก๐๐ก๐."
He goes on to expound the idea that those who think druids didn't have anything to do with Dartmoor are obviously deluded.
In 1900 the famous Rev Sabine Baring Gould in his "A Book of Dartmoor" says unequivocally that:
"๐โ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐, ๐๐๐๐๐๐, ๐ก๐ ๐๐ ๐ ๐๐๐ ๐๐ข๐๐๐๐ข๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐, ๐๐ข๐ก ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐กโ๐๐ ๐ ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ก๐๐๐๐๐๐๐, ๐๐๐ ๐กโ๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐๐๐ก ๐ ๐๐๐๐ก๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐๐ฃ๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐กโ๐๐ก ๐๐๐ฆ ๐๐ ๐กโ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐ฃ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐ก๐๐๐ข๐ ๐ค๐๐๐ โ๐๐."
Being a Christian it's not surprising he's keen to distance himself from the idea of druids (just pointing out, not judging).
Now, many of you (who are perhaps aware of the witch/hare/hunter/hounds scenario) will be wondering where the hell that perfectly formed story is in my ramblings ... and that's where it gets interesting (well, at least to me).
I've always (I believed) been aware of this story ... proud hunter, witches, yadda yadda ... guess what? Seems to have zero basis in anything ...
My own copy of "The Homeland Handbooks - Dartmoor" ... 1913
In fact, whilst re-reading my own copy of "The Witchcraft and Folklore of Dartmoor" by renowned local journalist and author from Sticklepath; Ruth E. St. Leger-Gordon; I was surprised to notice this observation from a Dartmoor resident famed for collecting stories about witches and local folklore;
"๐ต๐๐ค๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐กโ๐ โ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐ ๐ ๐๐๐๐ ๐ก๐๐, ๐๐๐ค ๐๐ฆ๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐ ๐๐๐๐ก๐ก๐๐ ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐ข๐๐ โ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐ก. ๐๐๐๐กโ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐กโ๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐ก๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ โ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐ก๐๐๐ก๐๐๐ ๐ โ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ โ๐ ๐๐ฃ๐๐๐ก๐ข๐๐๐๐ฆ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ โ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ก ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐ ๐ ๐โ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐๐๐. ๐๐๐กโ ๐๐๐๐ฆ ๐๐๐ ๐๐ข๐ โ๐๐ ๐ค๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐ ๐ ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐ก๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐ฆ ๐๐ ๐กโ๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐ก-๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐ก๐ข๐๐ ๐คโ๐๐โ ๐๐๐ฃ๐๐ โ๐๐ โ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐, ๐๐ ๐๐ฃ๐๐ ๐ ๐๐๐๐ข๐๐ ๐๐๐ฃ๐๐ก๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ก ๐๐ ๐ต๐๐ค๐๐๐๐๐. ๐๐๐ก, ๐๐๐๐๐ก ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐๐ฆ๐กโ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ข๐๐๐๐, ๐๐ ๐ ๐ก๐๐๐ฆ ๐๐๐๐๐๐ก๐๐ ๐๐๐๐ ๐กโ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ก ๐๐ "๐๐๐". ๐ด๐๐ฆ ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐ก๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐กโ๐๐ก ๐ ๐ข๐๐๐๐ฆ ๐๐ข๐ ๐ก ๐๐๐๐ โ๐๐ฃ๐ ๐๐ฅ๐๐ ๐ก๐๐, ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ค ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐๐ฃ๐๐ ๐๐ ๐ต๐๐ค๐๐๐๐๐'๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐ก๐ ๐๐๐ ๐๐. ๐ด๐๐ ๐กโ๐๐ก ๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐ ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐ข๐ก โ๐๐ ๐ค๐๐กโ ๐๐๐๐ก๐๐๐๐ก๐ฆ ๐๐ ๐กโ๐๐ก ๐ท๐๐ข๐๐๐ ๐ค๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐๐ ๐ค๐๐ฆ ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐คโ๐๐ก โ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ โ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ก๐๐๐๐๐ฆ ๐๐ฆ ๐๐๐ก๐ข๐๐, ๐๐๐ ๐กโ๐๐ก ๐๐ ๐กโ๐ ๐๐๐๐ ๐ค๐ ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐ก ๐กโ๐ ๐ถ๐๐๐ก๐๐ ๐๐๐๐. ๐ต๐๐ค๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ โ ๐๐ ๐๐๐กโ๐๐ ๐ค๐๐ โ ๐ฃ๐๐ค๐-๐๐๐๐, ๐กโ๐ "๐๐๐๐๐ก ๐ ๐ก๐๐๐". ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ฆ ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐กโ๐ "๐๐๐ ๐" ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ฃ๐๐๐ข๐ ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ ; ๐๐๐ก ๐ค๐ โ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ข๐ ๐ โ๐ ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ฆ ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ก๐ ๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ก๐๐๐ฆ ๐๐ฆ๐กโ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ค-๐๐๐ ๐คโ๐, ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ก๐ ๐ ๐๐๐ ๐ก๐ฆ ๐ ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐, ๐ ๐๐ก๐ก๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐ฆ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ก๐๐ ๐กโ๐ ๐ถ๐๐๐๐ข๐๐ ๐ก."
I got excited by the mention of "๐๐๐๐๐ก ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐๐ฆ๐กโ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ข๐๐๐๐" ... yet this is obviously a reference to the "nose" bit.
Written in 1972, this can only mean that the "Legend" must have been "discovered" sometime between 1973 and when it appears in any sort of written form.
My own copy of "The Folklore of Devon" published in 1977 by Ralph Whitlock does not mention Bowerman's Nose at all. Seems like a terrible omission.
I've carried out numerous searches and catalogued many well quoted sources from before this date that also make no mention of witches ...
"The face of Dartmoor : a wilderness in colour" published in 1985 is the first mention of witches and turning to stone that I can find (not saying there aren't more) and even then the mention is of the Hounds of Bowerman being turned to stone and forming Hound Tor ... nothing of Bowerman himself.
"๐ด ๐๐๐๐ ๐ก๐๐๐ ๐ ๐๐ฆ๐ ๐กโ๐๐ก ๐กโ๐๐ฆ ๐๐๐ ๐กโ๐ โ๐๐ข๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ก๐ ๐ต๐๐ค๐๐๐๐๐ ๐กโ๐ ๐๐๐โ๐ก๐ฆ โ๐ข๐๐ก๐๐, ๐คโ๐ ๐ค๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐ก๐ข๐๐๐๐ ๐ก๐ ๐ ๐ก๐๐๐ ๐๐ฆ ๐ ๐ค๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ค๐๐ก๐โ."
So, logic lets us know that sometime between 1977 and 1985 the now ever encompassing story that you'll find on nearly every internet search result for "Bowerman's Nose" was concocted.
It was around the eighties, and we'd just had the Star Wars phenomenon, so I deduce that unemployment, pubs and a renewed interest in Joseph Campbells work might be at the heart of this mystery ๐คฃ
From "Devon 100 years ago" by Frank Graham - Publication date 1969 - From a drawing by John Tucker 1860
Let's not get ahead of ourselves whilst we read this meandering dismantling of greatly loved and oft repeated stories ... I don't actually care very much.
Legends are, frankly, made up stories and as such will have (no doubt) always been embellished ... added to and at some point older stories (most likely from another part of the world) been adapted and altered for a local audience ...
Stories are actually few and far between ... if you'd like to Google Kurt Vonnegut - The Shapes of Stories you'll see what I mean. ๐คฃ ... I digress)
My quest to discover the true "author" of the Legend (I have been on eBay and AbeBooks to add to my arsenal) ... if you have a definitive source, please let me know.
From "A Book of Dartmoor" by Rev Sabine Baring-Gould - Publication date 1900
- From a drawing by A. B. Collier, Esq.
Look at those illustrations of Bowerman's Nose, I'm no artist, but I'm fairly sure I could scribble something today which in 100 years would still be recognisable as the stack of stones we know (and the surrounding scenery).
I suggest that at least one of those artists might never have actually been to Hayne Down, and if they had, they obviously lied about their qualifications ๐คฃ
There is no point to this, I like to read about Dartmoor, I like to research stuff ('cus it's fun to me), and I like to speculate, nothing more. I take photographs which the internet ignores, so now I might write a bit more and that will get ignored ... I don't care ๐คฃ
What really interests me is how easily we can be swayed by an idea that fits with our world view.
How reading something, seeing something, repeating something, without checking it, means we could forever live in ignorance.
Which suits some.