Hills an' that

Tomnaverie 3

Image by greywether

Rhiannon Mar 24, 2005 15:15:17

Greywether, I was just idly looking at your Tomnaverie contributions and I see there's a bloomin great hill with loads of stuff on nearby - namely, Scar Hill and thereabouts (at about nj481013). There also seems to be another, Craiglich to the north, but there isn't anything prehistoric on that.
I was just wondering... can you remember which way does the view over the recumbent stone face?

Or is this quarry I hear about just too hideous a distraction?!

By the way, is the name right - Tomenaverie? just that it's Tomnaverie on the map. Not that the map is necessarily right.

Rhiannon Mar 24, 2005 15:21:39

Replying to Rhiannon

I meant idly in the sense of Extremely Interestedly whilst Being Gratuitously Idle though being paid to Work. Not in a bad way, sorry.

FourWinds Mar 24, 2005 16:24:22

Replying to Rhiannon

Most RSCs have the recumbent stones in the SE quadrant (I think)

greywether Mar 24, 2005 16:26:28

Replying to Rhiannon

Scar Hill is too far S. The recumbent is much more SW (235 degrees) and is supposed to frame Lochnagar (about 30km SW at NO256855). But it was too misty the day we were there to see that far.

Interestingly, since most RSC alignments are nearer SSW and generally frame a hill 1 - 5 km away, Scar Hill would be a much more "typical" choice (2.3 km and 193 degrees). Must have been something special about Lochnagar.

The problem with the quarry is that the fence Historic Scotland have put up to stop people stepping back to take photographs and falling in is both too high and too near the recumbent.

As for the name, I don't know why it's on here with TomEnaverie as its main name but that was how it was originally posted. Maybe it's that way in the book. I don't know .... mine's is out on loan.

Rhiannon Mar 24, 2005 17:44:22

Replying to Rhiannon

So if most of the recumbent stones are in the SW - what does that signify? I suppose it can't be things in the landscape (like wot I was supposing) so is it astronomical things??

Hob Mar 25, 2005 00:19:24

Replying to Rhiannon

Different RSC, but a nice pic with a 'significant' looking hill, so sorta relevant:

http://www.rcahms.gov.uk/images/337167.jpg

Moth Mar 29, 2005 15:09:19

Replying to Rhiannon

For some reason Julian insists on spelling it that way - Think I had the discussion with Holy ages ago. Likewise 'Shieldon' rather than 'Sheldon' http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/site/2639. (Incidentally, bloody hell that's one that's often 'missed'!)

love

Moth