Julian Cope presents Head Heritage

An update on the work that was carried out last summer. It does make you realise all the formalities that have to be done before even a megalithic site can be highlighted and restored to some degree - all to the good, and I hope the next undertaking will go just as well Roy.



https://theheritagetrust.wordpress.com/2016/04/27/the-cornish-collection-the-stripple-stones/

That all seems exciting. Are there plans to raise the re-exposed stone mentioned the below passage from your article?

"There is something very special about re-exposing a buried stone that you know was once part of what we possibly perceive as being a ‘ritualistic or ceremonial’ monument and once likely to have been last handled by our great ancestors some 4,500-5,000 years ago! We often refer to these stones as being ‘sacred’ and I have to admit to feeling a tingle when they first see the light of day again and always hope that they are not too deep to leave exposed once recorded. They were meant to be seen and although no longer all standing are nevertheless there for our wonderment and why we as a group find great pleasure and privilege in re-exposing them at any given opportunity."

There are now 11 stones standing (two are oddly shaped in a way that suggests they were broken either when or after they fell) and the wall through the site has gone. I'd forgotten that work had been done, so was a bit shocked to find the stones back up, in a good way. The stones are *big*!

Made an unexpected highlight of a great day - King Arthur's Hall>Emblance Downs circles>Leaze circle (no access trouble at all)>Hawk's Tor>Stripple Stones>Trippet Stones, some round houses on the way.

Quietly but hopefully officially. I know that three stones were reerected a couple of years back, but now another four are up.

I was particularly surprised because Burl comments that the post-holes of the fallen stones were very shallow, so to put these back up must have involved new holes and not necessarily replicating the original construction. Still, the previous restoration was overseen by the County archaeologist so I assume the new four were too. It's an odd site, the stones are very mismatched in size, with no grading. It lacks the elegance of Trippet Stones or Leaze.

It's a lovely setting though. I agree with you about King Arthur's Hall, it's very special.

Hi Roy

I hoped you'd stop by on this one. That's excellent news, thanks for confirming. Does the report mention the shallow post holes issue? If I remember rightly this was identified again when the first three stones were put back up as a reason not to do more, so presumably someone has re-interpreted?

Re the size, it's not so much the size as the order that feels unsatisfying somehow, but it's a purely personal response to visiting the site. I've been to plenty of sites with varying sized stones (including my favourite of all at Boskednan) and there's usually some sense that the stones are graded - just about every RSC has graded stones - or at least that putting the big stones at particular points is deliberate (for example at Avebury). Here it seemed more random, although I haven't got any knowledge of celestial alignments etc that might provide an explanation. Mind you, the simplest explanation might just be sloppiness! After all, the plan is not very circular (the NW arc is almost straight) and they didn't dig proper holes, so maybe they just didn't know what they were doing :)

tsc