|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Men-An-Tol » Men-An-Tol |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
Sanctuary 3392 posts |
Feb 24, 2012, 15:39
|
||
I know by previous posts that many of you guys have spent many happy hours tramping around Penwith in West Cornwall. Although I live in the east of the county I've never visited the west yet on a stones mission but that will be changing this year. I wanted to ask a question about the holed stone at Men-An-Tol. Does the outer ring of the holed stone continue as a ring like a doughnut, or does the outer section where earth-fast have a spur on it that sockets into the ground to hold it secure? Cheers, Roy
|
|||
|
jonnyj 28 posts |
Feb 25, 2012, 05:48
|
||
|
I'm not sure what you're asking to be honest Sanctuary. Are you asking if the outer circle was akin to a kerbed cairn, having a bank, with inner and outer retaining stones. ? I might just be having a grey moment.
|
|||
|
Sanctuary 3392 posts |
Feb 25, 2012, 09:22
|
||
|
jonnyj wrote: I'm not sure what you're asking to be honest Sanctuary. Are you asking if the outer circle was akin to a kerbed cairn, having a bank, with inner and outer retaining stones. ? I might just be having a grey moment. Hi jonnyj, No I'm asking if the ring stone is purely a ring and simply embedded partly into the ground at its base, or does it have a projected base on it that secures in into the ground just like a traditional standing stone. Cheers
|
|||
|
Megalithics 194 posts |
Edited Feb 25, 2012, 18:18
Feb 25, 2012, 17:29
|
||
|
Sanctuary wrote: Does the outer ring of the holed stone continue as a ring like a doughnut, or does the outer section where earth-fast have a spur on it that sockets into the ground to hold it secure? Cheers, Roy Just checking our pics and it looks like about a third of the circumference is buried with a maximum of about half the "doughnut" ring thickness below ground. This would be enough to keep it upright if it was a ring, but when you consider the human traffic that hole must get in a year (we've both been through umpteen times)and the pulling and pushing involved we'd have thought it would fallen ages ago if this was the only support. It may well have been moved "recently" as the four most obvious stones at the site (it was a stone circle) are shown in a different arrangement in our copy of Borlase's 1745 book "Antiquities Historical and Monumental". Of course there may be some "Stonehenge" style concrete hidden away below the earth.
|
|||
|
Megalithics 194 posts |
Feb 25, 2012, 18:27
|
||
|
tiompan wrote: "Of course there may be some "Stonehenge" style concrete hidden away below the earth. " There is . http://www.pastscape.org.uk/hob.aspx?hob_id=424271 We were interested by this part of the Pastscape description :- "Although hole stones are not generally associated with stone circles they have been shown to form part of these monuments in Scotland." Any idea which Scottish circles they are refering to?
|
|||
tiompan 4284 posts |
Feb 25, 2012, 18:38
|
||
|
"Of course there may be some "Stonehenge" style concrete hidden away below the earth. " There is . http://www.pastscape.org.uk/hob.aspx?hob_id=424271
|
|||
|
Megalithics 194 posts |
Feb 25, 2012, 19:07
|
||
|
Sanctuary wrote: IF, like they seem to believe today, that it was part of the setting of an actual circle of stones, then one would expect it to be earthfast like the remaining stones, but if not, then why not? That would 'suggest' that it was possibly meant to be moved around the settings...at different times of the year maybe? Just the way I'm thinking and go about things. We can't be sure that it was part of the original circle, we read one account that regarded it as a porthole entrance stone that had been removed from a chambered cairn and inserted here later. What is certain is that either the ring or the two stones have been moved since 1745. Borlase's plan shows the three upright stones set in an arc (perhaps the circumference of the stone circle?) but the ring is set at 45 degrees to the circumference, not in a radial or tangential position as would normally be expected. Pre-concrete, assuming the hole was always left unburied, it was probably fairly easy to topple and given the healing legends associated, it has probably been over a few times in the far past.
|
|||
|
Sanctuary 3392 posts |
Feb 25, 2012, 19:41
|
||
|
tiompan wrote: "Of course there may be some "Stonehenge" style concrete hidden away below the earth. " There is . http://www.pastscape.org.uk/hob.aspx?hob_id=424271 Yes Celia Haddon mentions it here: http://www.celiahaddon.co.uk/standing%20stones/cornwall.html Scroll down to Men An Tol. I'm waiting for a reply back from the Corwall Archaeo Society but I've not read anywhere yet that it has a projecting base to it so it could be secured like a normal standing stone. I think it's an important point in attempting to understand the make-up of the settings. IF, like they seem to believe today, that it was part of the setting of an actual circle of stones, then one would expect it to be earthfast like the remaining stones, but if not, then why not? That would 'suggest' that it was possibly meant to be moved around the settings...at different times of the year maybe? Just the way I'm thinking and go about things.
|
|||
|
tiompan 4284 posts |
Feb 25, 2012, 19:54
|
||
|
Megalithics wrote: tiompan wrote: "Of course there may be some "Stonehenge" style concrete hidden away below the earth. " There is . http://www.pastscape.org.uk/hob.aspx?hob_id=424271 We were interested by this part of the Pastscape description :- "Although hole stones are not generally associated with stone circles they have been shown to form part of these monuments in Scotland." Any idea which Scottish circles they are refering to? The only ones that come to mind are at Ballymeanoch , Craw Stone (Wigtownshire ) and Odin Stone Orkney none of which were components of stone circles .
|
|||
|
Sanctuary 3392 posts |
Feb 25, 2012, 20:17
|
||
|
Megalithics wrote: Sanctuary wrote: IF, like they seem to believe today, that it was part of the setting of an actual circle of stones, then one would expect it to be earthfast like the remaining stones, but if not, then why not? That would 'suggest' that it was possibly meant to be moved around the settings...at different times of the year maybe? Just the way I'm thinking and go about things. We can't be sure that it was part of the original circle, we read one account that regarded it as a porthole entrance stone that had been removed from a chambered cairn and inserted here later. What is certain is that either the ring or the two stones have been moved since 1745. Borlase's plan shows the three upright stones set in an arc (perhaps the circumference of the stone circle?) but the ring is set at 45 degrees to the circumference, not in a radial or tangential position as would normally be expected. Pre-concrete, assuming the hole was always left unburied, it was probably fairly easy to topple and given the healing legends associated, it has probably been over a few times in the far past. There seems to be so many differing accounts it's difficult to know what to make of it without a full modern-day excavation taking place which is unlikely. As for its healing qualities, well you'd need them if it fell on you whilst clambering through it!! :-)
|
| Pages: 2 – [ 1 2 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
- ©2013ce Head Heritage Ltd. Contact us Top of page