Recumbent or just fallen over?

Arbor Low 11

Image by thesweetcheat

Rhiannon Mar 31, 2003 10:10:29

I was reading Suave Harv's weblog with his comments about how the Arbor Low stones would look better in their original upright state - and I thought 'isn't it a recumbent circle?'. But I'm all confused now. Does anyone have any evidence either way? Have they ever found any filled in holes were the stones would have been set? What other evidence could people today look for?

elderford Mar 31, 2003 10:16:28

Replying to Rhiannon

i seem to remember that one of them lies at an angle (as opposed to flat on the ground) suggesting that it originally stood upright.

there's also mention of earlier in the 20th century an old boy could remember as a lad seeing when one or more were standing, but i've never heard any hard facts on that one.

i think the idea is that the stones weren't put up very well, and so could have toppled very quickly.

baza Mar 31, 2003 19:03:25

Replying to Rhiannon

The majority of the stones at Arbor Low have been broken at ground level. Next to most of the toppled stones you can see a stump left in the ground. If you examine the stones carefully, you can see where they fit onto their relevant stumps.

How do I know this?

I`ve been fortunate enough to spend a morning at Arbor Low with John Barnatt, Senior Survey Archaeologist for the Peak District National Park, who showed me!

It`s all so bleedingly obvious, when it`s been pointed out by THE expert.

baz

FourWinds Mar 31, 2003 21:41:53

Replying to Rhiannon

I'm sure someone mentioned the recumbent stones in RSCs echoing the horizon on this thread but I can't find it.

Although this is true for some examples it is not a general feature.

Interestingly the Scottish RSCs are thought to be moon related (with the recumbent in the south east [I think]) and the Irish Axials seem to be sun related.

AR Jul 6, 2004 21:26:32

Replying to Rhiannon

It could be possible that these stones were standing originally, but rather than fallen over, they were pushed over purposefully. I remember being told about a circle where the stones were actually pushed over by ancient peoples to signify a special event. The pushed over stones would have something underneath them to signify an event, death or some kind of incident. Prehaps even, the stones at Arbor Low were pushed over to mark the death of the chappie who was buried there!! Or prehaps as someone said, they were badly put up and fell over. The soil at Arbor Low is very shallow and below is rock, prehaps the shallow soil could not support them. xxx

AR Jul 6, 2004 21:44:27

Replying to Rhiannon

Dammit. I was just thinking about what I just said and realised that it would probably be very hard to push over the stones at Arbor Low and break them like that at the bottom. If pushed would they not have just been uprooted like a tree in the wind???