• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.
That's an excellent reason for your doing this I think. :friends:
 
While it’s fairly quiet on the thread I thought it might be useful to let you know of an addition to my Hexham Heads website.
I’ve just added a scan of the chapter on the Hexham Heads from the Incredible Phenomena book which was published in the 1980s. This is a very good write up of the mystery and was actually my first encounter with the story when I read this as a 10 year old.

Interestingly if you dig into the small print the chapter is written by Paul Screeton, something which isn’t obvious as writing credits are somewhat hidden in the book.

It can be viewed here.
 
While it’s fairly quiet on the thread I thought it might be useful to let you know of an addition to my Hexham Heads website.
I’ve just added a scan of the chapter on the Hexham Heads from the Incredible Phenomena book which was published in the 1980s. This is a very good write up of the mystery and was actually my first encounter with the story when I read this as a 10 year old.

Interestingly if you dig into the small print the chapter is written by Paul Screeton, something which isn’t obvious as writing credits are somewhat hidden in the book.

It can be viewed here.
@Schloup I need to read the book first but I'm old enough to remember hearing about the case in the mid eighties maybe through one of those Peter haining books we used to always have In the library!!
 
I borrowed Nick Redfern's book on secret societies from the library the other day and was surprised to discover an entry in there for the Hexham Heads. He combines it with an entry on the earlier wolf sightings in Hexham from the turn of the last century, making a connection between the wolf stories of the early 1900s and the werewolf sightings associated with the heads.

One thing I was curious about was he mentioned that the heads were on display for a while at the British Museum. He also states that after Frank Hyde had them "they made their way around more than a few researchers of ancient anomalies". I would argue from my research that both of these statements are false but does anyone know any different?

The account in the book appears to have been partly published here. All of the information about the heads is as it appears in the book, but the earlier accounts of the Hexham wolf has been omitted.
 
I borrowed Nick Redfern's book on secret societies from the library the other day and was surprised to discover an entry in there for the Hexham Heads. He combines it with an entry on the earlier wolf sightings in Hexham from the turn of the last century, making a connection between the wolf stories of the early 1900s and the werewolf sightings associated with the heads.


Out of curiosity, what kind of connection does he make? Is the suggestion that both the wolf sightings / attacks of the 1900s and the were-sheep/wolf/whatever sighting associated with the Hexham Heads are one and the same creature?
 
Out of curiosity, what kind of connection does he make? Is the suggestion that both the wolf sightings / attacks of the 1900s and the were-sheep/wolf/whatever sighting associated with the Hexham Heads are one and the same creature?

It's all a bit of a mess really.

He begins with an account of the 1904 Hexham wolf, then describes how a wolf was caught in Cumwinton, Cumbria, a month later. He quotes the local Hexham newspaper of the time arguing that this was not the same wolf, and then puts forward his next argument that "according to some theorists" there was whole pack of wolves roaming around Northern England by night at the time.

From this he then says how the Hexham wolf attacks abruptly stopped. He then joins the story to the Hexham Heads by saying "In 1972 however it may well have returned - albeit in a slightly different guise, and as evidence of this we have to turn our attention to the bizarre story of the Hexham Heads".

So in the space of a few short paragraphs he's thrown a number of theories into the pot, none of which have any tangible connection, and none of which contain any sources or references to follow up.
 
It's all a bit of a mess really.

He begins with an account of the 1904 Hexham wolf, then describes how a wolf was caught in Cumwinton, Cumbria, a month later. He quotes the local Hexham newspaper of the time arguing that this was not the same wolf, and then puts forward his next argument that "according to some theorists" there was whole pack of wolves roaming around Northern England by night at the time.

From this he then says how the Hexham wolf attacks abruptly stopped. He then joins the story to the Hexham Heads by saying "In 1972 however it may well have returned - albeit in a slightly different guise, and as evidence of this we have to turn our attention to the bizarre story of the Hexham Heads".

So in the space of a few short paragraphs he's thrown a number of theories into the pot, none of which have any tangible connection, and none of which contain any sources or references to follow up.


That is quite some jump of logic, yes. Can we see some of your workings, Mr Redfern?
 
I thought you might like this link, which is to Anne Ross's article 'Some new thoughts on old heads' in Archaeologia Aeliana for 1973 (online at the Archaeology Data Service website). There are pictures of the Hexham heads (amongst others), discussion of the significance of Celtic heads, and the appendix is a description specifically of the Hexham heads by Geology Professor Frank Hodson.
 
I thought you might like this link, which is to Anne Ross's article 'Some new thoughts on old heads' in Archaeologia Aeliana for 1973 (online at the Archaeology Data Service website). There are pictures of the Hexham heads (amongst others), discussion of the significance of Celtic heads, and the appendix is a description specifically of the Hexham heads by Geology Professor Frank Hodson.


thank you!

and I /love/ the ADS!
 
What on earth has happened to this story...Seems to have stalled - can't some jump leads be applied?. Colin r who found them, made contact 2 years ago. I suggested a year ago he wrote his account here as nothing seemed to be moving since then, & stu posted

It is - genuinely - in hand. I'm just finishing the final draft, which I'll then share with Colin for any last minute changes or clarifications before submission to the mag.
That was one week short of a year ago. The thread started in 2002.
 
OK - let's re-convene here in a years time.
I'm equally as frustrated, particularly as all the initial enthusiasm from Colin, plus the momentum which was building around his posts on the forum has now long since been lost.

It's starting to feel like the long-promised article has been dropped or put in drawer never to see the light of day. Othwerwise surely the FT don't have so much of a backlog that they can't squeeze it into an issue at some point over the course of a year.
 
I'm equally as frustrated, particularly as all the initial enthusiasm from Colin, plus the momentum which was building around his posts on the forum has now long since been lost.

It's starting to feel like the long-promised article has been dropped or put in drawer never to see the light of day. Othwerwise surely the FT don't have so much of a backlog that they can't squeeze it into an issue at some point over the course of a year.

If that's the case let's ask Colin to post his story here. If there's no movement in a while I'm thinking of PM-ing him to suggest it.
 
Another option would be to try and buy the rights to the unpublished article if the FT have genuinely lost interest. I don't know how much these things go for but I'm sure there'd be a few of us on here that would be willing to crowdfund it.

Alternatively - Colin - if you're reading this please start posting again!
 
While it’s fairly quiet on the thread I thought it might be useful to let you know of an addition to my Hexham Heads website.
I’ve just added a scan of the chapter on the Hexham Heads from the Incredible Phenomena book which was published in the 1980s. This is a very good write up of the mystery and was actually my first encounter with the story when I read this as a 10 year old.

Interestingly if you dig into the small print the chapter is written by Paul Screeton, something which isn’t obvious as writing credits are somewhat hidden in the book.

It can be viewed here.
That's a fine website.
 
Thanks for posting. That podcast is hard work - it's like listening to Bill and Ted when they know their Mum's gone out and they can try to impress each other by swearing o_O.

Yet again the British Museum is mentioned as a somewhere the Heads ended up after being with Anne Ross. I'm not sure whether they're taking their information from the same sources as Nick Redfern (see post #253) or they have another source, but once again they don't tell us where this information is coming from. It's frustrating because I'd like to close this angle off as a definite dead end but people keep mentioning the British Museum so I keep trying to find out information about it and getting nowhere.
 
Thanks for posting. That podcast is hard work - it's like listening to Bill and Ted when they know their Mum's gone out and they can try to impress each other by swearing o_O.

Yet again the British Museum is mentioned as a somewhere the Heads ended up after being with Anne Ross. I'm not sure whether they're taking their information from the same sources as Nick Redfern (see post #253) or they have another source, but once again they don't tell us where this information is coming from. It's frustrating because I'd like to close this angle off as a definite dead end but people keep mentioning the British Museum so I keep trying to find out information about it and getting nowhere.

How about an email to them asking them? I reckon you'd get a reply.
 
An email to who? The podcasters or the British Museum?

If it's the British Museum a reply is unlikely although I could give it a go. Working in a similar setup myself I know that vague enquiries with no sources are unlikely to get anywhere. That's why any mention of a source goes a long way in telling a museum that you're serious and not just using them to do the leg work for you.
 
An email to who? The podcasters or the British Museum?

If it's the British Museum a reply is unlikely although I could give it a go. Working in a similar setup myself I know that vague enquiries with no sources are unlikely to get anywhere. That's why any mention of a source goes a long way in telling a museum that you're serious and not just using them to do the leg work for you.

The British Museum. Don't be vague, tell them you're researching it. You could send photos. If they'd had them, it would've been catalogued & traceable in their collection. Why they'd then let them go I don't know - ownership claimed by someone? - it sounds implausible to me.

Museums are generally helpful in my experience. I once found an interesting stone on a beach years ago took it into the Natural History Museum & someone actually came & looked at it & informed me it was a fossilised sponge.
 
Back
Top