Kilmartin Area forum 12 room
Image by Martin
Kilmartin Area

RA Query

close
more_vert
Pilgrim P
Pilgrim Jul 6, 2007 10:46:36
Replying to tiompan

Hi tiompan,

Thanks for your response.

tiompan wrote:
Hi Pilgrim ,
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.
Interesting. I asked the question because the marks seem only to go up so far on this stone, which suggest to me that it was carved after it had been erected (or am I being height-ist?). Would it not be the case that there might be an increase in ground cover (humic layer etc.) that could account for the markings below ground level? [edited: of course not; that would preclude packing stones, you numpty!] It's not something I know anything about, so forgive me if I appear thick.

tiompan wrote:
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 .
Aye. Strange how one of them sits astride the the large "gouge". This would be co-opted, I take it?

Peace

Pilgrim

X

T tiompan
tiompan Jul 6, 2007 11:07:04
Replying to Pilgrim

Pilgrim wrote:
Hi tiompan,

Thanks for your response.

tiompan wrote:
Hi Pilgrim ,
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.
Interesting. I asked the question because the marks seem only to go up so far on this stone, which suggest to me that it was carved after it had been erected (or am I being height-ist?). Would it not be the case that there might be an increase in ground cover (humic layer etc.) that could account for the markings below ground level? [edited: of course not; that would preclude packing stones, you numpty!] It's not something I know anything about, so forgive me if I appear thick.

There is no doubt that ladders or some form of scaffolding must have been used at certain sites e.g. cliff faces without the advantage of raised water levels , if applicable .I found some markings on an arratic near Glen Lyon that would have reqired the carver to have been 3m tall .
There must have been a rise in soil cover ,the Crinan Moss stones a few miles away are just visible above the peat big which must be at least 2m deep , Callanish was the same .

tiompan wrote:
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 .
Aye. Strange how one of them sits astride the the large "gouge". This would be co-opted, I take it?Peace

Pilgrim

X

I think the gouge /crack has a framing effect the markings are much "busier" to the north of it . I' m still ruminationg on co-opting

Like all websites everywhere, we use cookies.