Julian Cope presents Head Heritage

Head To Head
Log In
Register
The Modern Antiquarian Forum »
Rudston Monolith »
Large stones
Log In to post a reply

Pages: 3 – [ 1 2 3 | Next ]
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
moss
moss
2865 posts

Edited Feb 15, 2017, 15:50
Large stones
Feb 15, 2017, 15:46
Whilst standing in awe yesterday at the size of the Rudston monolith, what better stone to meet then on Valentine's day? It struck me that Stukeley's Obelisk stone, destroyed all those years ago, would have been somewhat similar, its height I think 21 feet, the theory that you find on the Avebury Web is that it paired with a female stone, presumably for a mating ceremony via a shadow....

http://www.avebury-web.co.uk/the_obelisk.html
tjj
tjj
3453 posts

Edited Feb 15, 2017, 17:44
Re: Large stones
Feb 15, 2017, 17:35
moss wrote:
Whilst standing in awe yesterday at the size of the Rudston monolith, what better stone to meet then on Valentine's day? It struck me that Stukeley's Obelisk stone, destroyed all those years ago, would have been somewhat similar, its height I think 21 feet, the theory that you find on the Avebury Web is that it paired with a female stone, presumably for a mating ceremony via a shadow....

http://www.avebury-web.co.uk/the_obelisk.html



So perhaps the Rudston Monolith and the Obelisk stone are/were phallic symbols? There doesn't seem to be any evidence that there was another different shaped stone by the Rudston one - as in Avebury. But why not indeed - its as good a theory as any. And the paired stones on the West Kennett Avenue have been said to represent male and female too.
thesweetcheat
thesweetcheat
5952 posts

Re: Large stones
Feb 15, 2017, 19:18
I suspect there were more monuments at/near Rudston than there are now. It's not an area well-represented by lots of standing stones, but it's also quite agricultural so stuff will have disappeared, I guess timber might have played a role too.
tiompan
tiompan
5758 posts

Edited Feb 15, 2017, 19:36
Re: Large stones
Feb 15, 2017, 19:35
thesweetcheat wrote:
I suspect there were more monuments at/near Rudston than there are now. It's not an area well-represented by lots of standing stones, but it's also quite agricultural so stuff will have disappeared, I guess timber might have played a role too.


It's surrounded by cursuses .
thesweetcheat
thesweetcheat
5952 posts

Re: Large stones
Feb 15, 2017, 19:39
Yep, but not megalithic monuments. The nearest surviving stand stone is a long way away I think (miles anyway), and the nearest stones on anything like a similar scale are Devil's Arrows on the other side of the county.
tiompan
tiompan
5758 posts

Re: Large stones
Feb 15, 2017, 19:54
thesweetcheat wrote:
Yep, but not megalithic monuments. The nearest surviving stand stone is a long way away I think (miles anyway), and the nearest stones on anything like a similar scale are Devil's Arrows on the other side of the county.


Easter areas in general lack the megaliths for megalithic monuments , hence the possibility that the Devils arrows and Rudston were imported from Plumpton .

What might be missing due to the intensive agriculture and applicable to other similar areas are earthen monuments like barrows .
moss
moss
2865 posts

Re: Large stones
Feb 15, 2017, 20:23
tiompan wrote:
thesweetcheat wrote:
Yep, but not megalithic monuments. The nearest surviving stand stone is a long way away I think (miles anyway), and the nearest stones on anything like a similar scale are Devil's Arrows on the other side of the county.


Easter areas in general lack the megaliths for megalithic monuments , hence the possibility that the Devils arrows and Rudston were imported from Plumpton .

What might be missing due to the intensive agriculture and applicable to other similar areas are earthen monuments like barrows .




There are barrows in the district, two off hand, Duggleby Howe and Willy Howe both large, but nearby to both is the Gypsey Race, which also runs through the village of Rudston, linking settlements in the area.
Probably the Rudston stone happened because of glacial movement, the stone comes from around 20 miles away but I quite like the theory that it is part of a complex of stones that may refer to fertility, though the Obelisk looks rather a clumsy thickset stone....
tiompan
tiompan
5758 posts

Re: Large stones
Feb 15, 2017, 20:46
moss wrote:
tiompan wrote:
thesweetcheat wrote:
Yep, but not megalithic monuments. The nearest surviving stand stone is a long way away I think (miles anyway), and the nearest stones on anything like a similar scale are Devil's Arrows on the other side of the county.


Easter areas in general lack the megaliths for megalithic monuments , hence the possibility that the Devils arrows and Rudston were imported from Plumpton .

What might be missing due to the intensive agriculture and applicable to other similar areas are earthen monuments like barrows .




There are barrows in the district, two off hand, Duggleby Howe and Willy Howe both large, but nearby to both is the Gypsey Race, which also runs through the village of Rudston, linking settlements in the area.
Probably the Rudston stone happened because of glacial movement, the stone comes from around 20 miles away but I quite like the theory that it is part of a complex of stones that may refer to fertility, though the Obelisk looks rather a clumsy thickset stone....


Yep the big Howes would have been too much trouble or had bigger scare value for farmers to remove. It is the smaller non megalithic barrows and cemeteries that may have been lost in lowland areas (usually eastern ) skewing the data .
Glaciation has to be considered for the presence of the stones but the anti punters doing the moving Thorpe and Williams -Thorpe did accept that the monolith was 2 km outside the limits of Devensian glaciation but not necessarily earlier glaciations . It's size is way out of the bluestone league , if it was punters it was some feat .
Rhiannon
5265 posts

Re: Large stones
Feb 15, 2017, 21:00
Funnily enough, June, your post made me think of something I read recently. "An old woman in the village informed Mr. Allen, who published his History of Yorkshire in 1829, that she could remember the remains of a similar block of stone, which was situated some yards to the east of the present obelisk."

That could be sheer piffle though.

That's from a footnote in this
https://archive.org/stream/historyandtopog00whelgoog#page/n502/mode/2up

but it's not in Mr Allen's book though, at least that I can find.

You'd think a second stone would stick in folklore. But maybe people actually have short memories. But wouldn't it be written down somewhere? Or the place even be called Rud stones?!
https://archive.org/stream/anewandcomplete00hollgoog#page/n137/mode/2up/search/rudston
tjj
tjj
3453 posts

Re: Large stones
Feb 15, 2017, 21:18
Intriguing Rhiannon. If we are just talking large (tall) standing stones - either single or pairs, then I offer The Pipers, outliers of the Merry Maidens in West Cornwall. Happy to stand corrected of course but I have no recollection of them being described as fertility stones ... or have they?
Pages: 3 – [ 1 2 3 | Next ] Add a reply to this topic

The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index