|Details of stones on Pastscape
SS 73903815 A setting of six stones in Squallacombe form roughly a rectangle of 45 feet NE-SW by 12 feet. The stones are between 21 inches and 28 inches long, and two, one at the E. corner and the one in the centre of the SE side are now prostrate. The setting was discovered by members of the North Devon Archaeological Society. SS 73903815. In 1973 this stone setting comprised 6 stones in two parellel rows of 3, 4 of the stones standing and 2 fallen. It was aligned more or less north-south. In September 1982 Eardley-Wilmot noted that only the 3 western stones were standing. The south-east corner stone was broken and fallen but the stub was still upright. (2) Four photographs of the stone setting supplied to the NAR (3). Squallacombe I SS 73813822.
A stone setting comprising a double row of at least seven stones. It is orientated NNE to SSW along a contour, with four upright stones forming the W row 19.2m long, individual stones spaced 5.8m (F-E) 8.9m (E-C) and 4.6m (C-A) apart. The row is not quite straight, F being slightly out of alignment.
Three fallen stones forming the E row are probably close to their original positions (B,D and G). The stump of G is visible giving a distance here between the rows of 4.7m.
Another two subsurface stones were located along the E row. Their nature and antiquity are uncertain. They are deposited as crosses on the plan.
All the in situ stones except C are aligned across the major axis of the setting. The original layout may have been an elongated rectangle but with stones not necessarily exactly paired stones F and G for instance.
The setting lies in rush and coarse grass on a moderate E slope with clear views from NE through E to S. Like many others is situated close to a steep valley side. The remains of two other stone settings lie close by (see SS 73 NW 32,33).
The identification of four upright stones in the W row is problematic due to the fact that previous fieldworkers have noted only three (in 1973 and 1982 (2)). From an existing sketch plan it seems that stone A is the new arrival, possibly a recent insertion. The erosion hole is deep and its edges quite sharp, which suggests the possibility that it may be a hole caused by the extraction of a buried stone which was subsequently re-erected. Its different alignment in comparison to the other stones is noted above and may be significant in this context (4).
Posted by Chance
27th December 2014ce