Pilgrim wrote:
Dear RA Heads,
Hi Pilgrim , My best mate Tim and his wife Judith are in the enviable position of cruising the West Coast of Scotland this summer. An account of their travels that may be of interest to your esteemed selves (and even slumpystones) can be elucidated at the following address:
http://www.seaspirit.co.uk/logbookJune07.htm
..where you will bear witness to the vertically established decorated stone.
I am prompted to bring this page to your attention and query something that has been bothering my limited intelligence, namely:
Marked, then raised? Or the reverse?
Any thoughts?
Peace
Pilgrim
X
It is often suggested that standing stones with RA were carved in situ then moved to be erected , evidence for this is the discovery of markings below ground level and hence difficult to carve .That makes perfect sense . However there are of examples of both sides of the standing stone being marked so at least one must have been done after moving from the original site if not erection . The stone in the pic ,from Kilmartin is part of a group that despite the Canmore description have far more carvings , on edges of stones and faces . Personally I think a lot of the carvings would have been done at least before erection if only because it was easier but maybe that misses some important point in relation to ritual or the markings having some relevance to the erection site .
