|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Rudston Monolith » Large stones |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
carol27 747 posts |
Feb 16, 2017, 11:04
|
||
|
moss wrote: carol27 wrote: There's speculation that the Rudston monolith extends as much underground as can be seen above ground; imagine that! Hi Carol, Notice you went to Rudston a few days ago, my friend Roy has sent me emails this morning with vast internet books on Yorkshire, keep me quiet for a few days. He also mentioned that fact as well, Strickland I think and loads of bones and skulls. Funnily enough when I get round to reading it seems that Willy Howe and Duggleby Howe had deep shafts as well. Did you visit either of them? Hello Moss. I'd been musing on the Rudston monument for a while ( as you do!) Ahem.. I read your excellent blog as you know & you mentioned it & that was it, I was off. I must admit I did wonder if you might be there ( oh that sounds a bit odd, anyway..)I did visit Duggleby & traipsed up & down & very impressive it is. These lumps & bumps that I wouldn't have looked twice at in the past. We started our visit to Yorkshire at the Devils Arrows. They are astonishing. I hadn't expected them to be so huge. I read about the Gypsey Race but didn't quite take it in fully, & me being me, am a little annoyed that I didn't grasp its importance, so thanks for the intermittent stream photos & info. I hope you & yours are well. I'm off to Sunkenkirk yet again ( obsessive, moi) My day off & better than cleaning the house ..spur of the moment as per:)
|
|||
moss 2897 posts |
Feb 16, 2017, 11:58
|
||
|
"I hope you & yours are well. I'm off to Sunkenkirk yet again ( obsessive, moi) My day off & better than cleaning the house ..spur of the moment as per:)" I do know those spur of the moments decisions. Enjoy your stones. The Gypsey Race is of course a speculation but if you read 'notjamesbond' notes, you will see that he visited all the villages that the river goes through.... http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/post/28838/exploring_the_gypsey_race_a_tour_around_a_forgotten_landscape.html take care X
|
|||
Littlestone 5386 posts |
Edited Feb 16, 2017, 21:31
Feb 16, 2017, 18:43
|
||
|
carol27 wrote: I'd been musing on the Rudston monument for a while ( as you do!) Hi Carol. Musing on the monument is what we’ve been doing since visiting it on Tuesday! :-) Rhiannon - thanks for posting the 1831 illustration of the Rudson Monolith by N Whitlock on the TMA homepage. Thomas Allen, author of the book in which the illustration appears, says that it (the monolith) is, “...twenty-nine feet four inches in height...” and that, “Some years ago, the weather having made considerable inroads on the upper parts of the stone, it was covered in lead.” The present height of the monolith is some 25 foot so, assuming that Allen’s twenty nine foot four inches is reasonably accurate, we’re looking for a stone that once tipped the monolith and had (has) a height of some four foot four inches. I’ve suggested here that the outlier stone in the graveyard might be a contender but I might be talking complete bollocks. But take a look at the left-hand shape/angle of the outlier photo in the above link and compare it to the shape/angle in Whitlock’s illustration. Moss and I were completely gobsmacked by the size of the monolith itself (and it was freezing cold there on Tuesday) that taking measurements (even if it were somehow possible) of the top of the monolith was furthest from our mind. We’ll go out there again when it warms up a bit and I’ll see if anything might ‘add up’ measurement-wise. Meanwhile, if anyone else is heading out there anytime soon I’d be interested in what they might think of the outlier. PS There’s also a footnote on page 90 of Thomas Allen’s book that states, “An old woman in the village informed the author that she could remember the remains of a similar block of stone [to the monolith], which was situated some yards to the east of the present obelisk.”
|
|||
|
Rhiannon 5290 posts |
Edited Feb 17, 2017, 08:39
Feb 17, 2017, 08:20
|
||
Maybe Mr Allen had the same trouble estimating the height of the stone as you did?! I know when we visited it was a job of standing someone at the bottom and trying to estimate person-heights-worth. It's bloody impressive isn't it. And very surprising to turn the corner of the church and see.
|
|||
|
Littlestone 5386 posts |
Feb 17, 2017, 08:47
|
||
Try this link Rhiannon - https://archive.org/stream/anewandcomplete00hollgoog#page/n139/ The 9/ at the end should take you to page 90 which is the page following the illustration. I thought the book was A new and complete history of the county of York' by Thomas Allen, v4, 1831 but maybe I’m getting mixed up. The first paragraph continues to discuss the dimensions of the Monolith and the footnote is at the very bottom of page 90.
|
|||
|
carol27 747 posts |
Edited Feb 17, 2017, 09:12
Feb 17, 2017, 09:07
|
||
|
We saw the outlying stone, still covered on one side with white lichen. I suppose it depends on the accuracy of the measurements. Also,how much of the tapering point of the Rudston has been eroded, in that it would have had to support said outlier, or would it be part of the original stone that has broken off? It's intriguing. It would seem to fit if the measurings accurate. Others have spoken of a possible circle & henge surrounding the monument. Editing, sorry....did you see the dinosaur print? I didn't. Is that just fancy?
|
|||
|
Rhiannon 5290 posts |
Feb 17, 2017, 10:38
|
||
no you're quite right, I'm just an unobservant idiot. Perhaps I was tired.
|
|||
|
Littlestone 5386 posts |
Feb 17, 2017, 14:59
|
||
|
carol27 wrote: We saw the outlying stone, still covered on one side with white lichen. I suppose it depends on the accuracy of the measurements. Also,how much of the tapering point of the Rudston has been eroded, in that it would have had to support said outlier, or would it be part of the original stone that has broken off? It's intriguing. It would seem to fit if the measurings accurate. Others have spoken of a possible circle & henge surrounding the monument. Editing, sorry....did you see the dinosaur print? I didn't. Is that just fancy? The Thomas Allen illustration seems to show a top similar in shape to the outlier but it (the top) had already been capped with lead, “Some years ago...” according to Whitlock. So is the sequence of events 1) Capping the top to prevent further weathering to it. 2) Then removing the top (or did it naturally fall) and replacing it with a cross (which moss says may have been done). 3) Removing the cross and replacing it with a new, or the original, lead cap. All sounds a bit fanciful doesn’t it :-( Two other things are that the outlier doesn’t show (from memory) much if any weathering and we don’t know if the present cap is hollow at the top or is encasing the stone. Confused in North Yorkshire. :-) PS Looked for the dinosaur print but couldn't see it. PPS Roy tells me that - One simple way to measure height from the ground is to put a perfectly upright 3ft stake into the ground alongside said object. When the stake’s shadow on the ground is exactly 3ft, you then measure the other object’s shadow - a standing stone in your case!!
|
|||
|
Littlestone 5386 posts |
Feb 17, 2017, 15:03
|
||
|
Rhiannon wrote: no you're quite right, I'm just an unobservant idiot. Perhaps I was tired. No prob, I’m confused a lot of the time now (see my reply to Carol above. :-)
|
|||
thesweetcheat 6210 posts |
Feb 17, 2017, 16:24
|
||
Just realised it's over 12 years since I went there, before discovering this website, while I still lived in York. Doesn't time fly?
|
| Pages: 3 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
