Re: Heymonheyehgorrennypikchaz? | Forum

Toor 1

Heymonheyehgorrenny pikchaz?

more_vert

FourWinds Sep 10, 2006 20:05:52

Replying to Hob

http://www.megalithomania.com/show/image/63

http://www.megalithomania.com/show/image/1762

http://www.megalithomania.com/show/image/2427

This stone (one of many at Castleruddery) shows that they can't be for splitting the stone as they run down two sides. You justt wouldn't split such a small stone in that way: http://www.megalithomania.com/show/image/55

Today's stones: http://www.megalithomania.com/show/image/6244

Hob Sep 10, 2006 20:19:37

Replying to FourWinds

I can see why you thought they might be quarrying related, but equally why you might think they're not. Especially with that two sided one. It would seem feasible that you might put incisions on two sides if it were bigger, but the time and effort on a smallish stone seems a bit like overkill.

With this: http://www.megalithomania.com/show/image/1762 surely anyone wanting stone would have taken the smaller bits first? Unless they were desperate for a couple of very thin gateposts.

I guess it just adds to the enigma of cup marks.

ryaner Sep 11, 2006 22:23:25

Replying to FourWinds

FourWinds wrote:

This stone (one of many at Castleruddery) shows that they can't be for splitting the stone as they run down two sides. You justt wouldn't split such a small stone in that way

This may add a bit of fuel to the debate:

http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/post/51033

Item no. 228 in the Arch. inventory of Co Louth "At least ten cup and ring devices and a chaeqered type motif occur on a rock outcrop."

There were at least 20 cups but not cup and ring devices. There could be more, but some particularly bollickey bullocks weren't too happy that we were in their field.

Andy