|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Drill holes |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic View: Flat | Threaded |
|
thelonious 330 posts |
Mar 11, 2011, 07:28
|
||
|
I'm off work at the moment with a bad back so I watched "Standing with Stones" DVD again to cheer myself up. This film is great and everytime I watch it I seem to notice something new. This time it was at Castleruddery in Ireland. Rupert, in this section, mentions his interest in drill holes and the similarities between drill holes on stones at Castleruddery and Fernworthy in Dartmoor. Watching this section reminded me that I had come across very similar drill holes at a site in aberdeenshire, Clune Hill stone circle. I remember at the time I was quite taken with these holes and took more photos of them then the stone circle. I guessed they were modern. http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/post/94541/clune_hill.html Had a look on Internet and found this site which is very interesting and mentions Castleruddery. It seems to think these holes are prehistoric masonry-marks. http://www.ancient-wisdom.co.uk/quarrymarks.htm http://www.ancient-wisdom.co.uk/irelandcastleruddery.htm So are these near identical drill holes on stones at sites in Scotland, Ireland and South England. Modern (18th and 19th century)? or were they made prehistory by the same people who built the circles? Rupert also hints in the film that the five holes in a straight line could be for another purpose. All good stuff. What does everyone think? (sorry if this has been covered before)
|
|||
tiompan 5758 posts |
Mar 11, 2011, 08:49
|
||
|
thelonious wrote: I'm off work at the moment with a bad back so I watched "Standing with Stones" DVD again to cheer myself up. This film is great and everytime I watch it I seem to notice something new. This time it was at Castleruddery in Ireland. Rupert, in this section, mentions his interest in drill holes and the similarities between drill holes on stones at Castleruddery and Fernworthy in Dartmoor. Watching this section reminded me that I had come across very similar drill holes at a site in aberdeenshire, Clune Hill stone circle. I remember at the time I was quite taken with these holes and took more photos of them then the stone circle. I guessed they were modern. http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/post/94541/clune_hill.html Had a look on Internet and found this site which is very interesting and mentions Castleruddery. It seems to think these holes are prehistoric masonry-marks. http://www.ancient-wisdom.co.uk/quarrymarks.htm http://www.ancient-wisdom.co.uk/irelandcastleruddery.htm So are these near identical drill holes on stones at sites in Scotland, Ireland and South England. Modern (18th and 19th century)? or were they made prehistory by the same people who built the circles? Rupert also hints in the film that the five holes in a straight line could be for another purpose. All good stuff. What does everyone think? (sorry if this has been covered before) A bit of Introspection might produce the Evidence for this Misterioso T . It shouldn't be too difficult to judge whether the possible prehistoric examples , "brilliant corners "were made using a metal tool .
|
|||
|
Rhiannon 5291 posts |
Edited Mar 11, 2011, 08:54
Mar 11, 2011, 08:53
|
||
|
Hello, I remember seeing quite a few at Piggledene, that's one of the sources of stone near avebury. Strikes me though that if you're determined to break some stone, and a prehistoric person has left some labour-intensively-made holes lying about, you're going to use those, not start on a brand new set. So at least at Piggledene that'd be good reason to think they're all relatively new (and besides, stones at sites round that way are entire not shaped and wouldn't have required breaking up?). But that doesn't mean to say there aren't old examples elsewhere of course. And I quite like the holes for their sculpturalness I have to say. though that's probably heresy. Sympathies for the back by the way, I have been there myself.
|
|||
|
thelonious 330 posts |
Mar 11, 2011, 09:25
|
||
brilliant corners cover art human stone circle ? :)
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
Mar 11, 2011, 09:29
|
||
|
thelonious wrote: brilliant corners cover art human stone circle ? :) Thought so . Four poster plus one ?
|
|||
StoneGloves 1149 posts |
Mar 11, 2011, 11:24
|
||
|
'Prehistoric masonry marks' - what does that mean exactly? Often these holes aren't perfectly round - which excludes them from modern methods of drilling. If they were laboriously made with pieces of flint and finished with rough sand stuck to wood with tar or tree resin then that would represent an enormous amount of effort, so their contemporary significance must have been great. Usually they are upward facing so might have held a liquid for a symbolic purpose. Maybe just rain water which would then have part evaporated, part percolated through the rock, perhaps recalling the passage of time. There has been speculation that the holes may have held posts, again for a symbolic context, but they don't seem deep enough for this use, nor are damaged ones found, as would be the case if they held flagpoles. Any easy way to determine their ancient provenance is to simply measure the diameter and to express this in megalithic inches - if it is an integer then you can be pretty sure they are ancient. My problem is with the holes which are artificial, but oval or boat-shaped - just what are they about?
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
Mar 11, 2011, 17:22
|
||
|
StoneGloves wrote: Any easy way to determine their ancient provenance is to simply measure the diameter and to express this in megalithic inches - if it is an integer then you can be pretty sure they are ancient. My problem is with the holes which are artificial, but oval or boat-shaped - just what are they about? Measure is not a good method for providing dates for prehistoric artefacts , particularly when the recommended measure itself is a fiction . The vast majority of British rock art motifs and engravings do not conform to the MI and an even greater number of modern artefacts that clearly have nothing to do with it , coincidentally do .
|
|||
Mr Hamhead 1020 posts |
Mar 14, 2011, 17:24
|
||
|
Coincidently, I spent yesterday up on Bodmin Moor looking at 19th century stone quarrying. Apart from it being a fantastic day weather wise with views as far as Exmoor and Lundy, we were shown a large rock that had been prepared to be cut for two mill stones. The grooves were similar to the ones on your photo from Aberdeen and those used in Ireland and elsewhere. It is generally accepted that this was the way granite was cut here in the south west pre 1800. Grooves cut about 6 inches long and 2 or 3 inches deep and 3 to 4 inches across are known as wedge and groove and are thought to date back to Medieval times. On Dartmoor commoners were allowed to take moorstones but not quarry, hence the number of stones lying around still with grooves in them. I have read many versions about how stones were split using this technique...some mention filling the grooves with water that would then freeze and split the rock.....I feel it would need to be very cold to do that! The most plausible description I have come across is that wooden wedges were inserted into the grooves, water was then used to expand the wood overnight to split the stone. I would love to see this done as I do find it hard to believe wood could split granite. Did they use the same technique in prehistoric times? I would have to say most Cornish menhirs and circles tend to be made up of stones that are the right shape for the job...they had plenty to choose from. If they were cutting them, would they not be a much more uniform shape? I can't comment on other parts of the country, but I don't think the grooves I see down here in the West Country are prehistoric.
|
|||
|
Mr Hamhead 1020 posts |
Mar 14, 2011, 17:25
|
||
When I say 3 or 4 inches across I mean the gap between the grooves...not the width of them.
|
|||
|
StoneGloves 1149 posts |
Mar 14, 2011, 17:31
|
||
Wedge and groove is used with dry wood, and water. The same method can be used on quarry faces. The carvings at prehistoric sites that resemble remains of wedge and groove have significant differences - not as deep - not as long - neat not roughcut - not always on the flaw lines. I know granite doesn't have much of a grain, so the last comment doesn't apply there. I only get to see sandstone - with a bit of limestone.
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index |
