Rectangular holes in stones

close
more_vert
Rupert Soskin R
Rupert Soskin Jun 5, 2009 11:55:22
Replying to Rhiannon

Hi Rhiannon,
Amazing isn't it? I've asked loads of archeos what they think of the slots and not a single one has even mentioned a Lewis. It's a new one on me too so a big thank you for the pointer.

It does open up more questions. The main reason I dismiss their use as 'unfinished splitting' is that those at Fernworthy and Castleruddery are situated in similar positions within their circles and there are no other seemingly redundant stones. It seems almost impossible to me that each site would contain a single slotted stone, identical in number of slots, that did not serve some specific function.

I have to say that, if the slots were for hoisting I think they would be even more numerous than they are but it certainly adds another possibility.

Best wishes

Rupert

R Rhiannon
Rhiannon Jun 5, 2009 12:29:15
Replying to Rupert Soskin

Thank you Rupert for the reply! I must say the same thought occurred to me - that they would be more common if they were for lifting: surely such a handy idea would have spread like wildfire (a meme like Richard Dawkins would say). I was really taken with the simplicity and basic mechanics of it, though, and the way the stone is grabbed by its own weight.
Anyway even if it's not that at all, - I guess one can only keep on questioning and looking for parallels. If it took a load of effort to make the holes you can bet it wasn't for nothing.