Artefact Recovery

Date 2020

Event ID 1127428

Category Recording

Type Artefact Recovery

Permalink http://canmore.org.uk/event/1127428

NS 81522 96976 In 1927, A D Lacaille visited Logie Old Church and recorded the presence of two peculiar ‘hog-backed’ stones. The first (Logie 1) is complete and lies just to the SE of the old church. The second (Logie 2), which is a fragment, was discovered in a stream to the E of the church. Lacaille thought this fragment was one of three pieces of a once-complete hogback he was told was deliberately broken in the early 20th century and thrown down the embankment. Lacaille finishes his entry by noting that he placed Logie 2 beside Logie 1, and this is where the mystery of the Logie hogbacks begins.

Logie 1 remains in the same location today as previously recorded by Lacaille, and it was subsequently recorded by the RCAHMS and James Lang. Unfortunately, however, both Lang and the RCAHMS appear to have been unable to correctly identify Logie 2. This misfortune has resulted in both referring to a lumpy stone set as a headstone at the N end of row 6 as likely being Logie 2. This is a strange assumption as this stone does not match Lacaille’s description of Logie 2, which he noted as being decorated with two rows of triangular tegulation. Logie 2 was, therefore, clearly ‘lost’ sometime after Lacaille placed it beside Logie 1.

Further complicating the hogback evidence at Logie, there is a mixed pile of carved stone fragments beside Logie 1, decorated with rows of two different types of tegulation. As with the lumpy stone above, none of these fragments matches Lacaille’s description of Logie 2, nor do they represent likely fragments of what would be the missing pieces of Logie 2 because the tegulation and form appear to be different. To complicate matters even further, this collection of stone fragments has also been referred to as Logie 2.

During a recent site visit as part of a doctoral research project, a potential hitherto unknown hogback fragment was discovered. This fragment is built into the eastern wall-head of the old church and was preliminarily named ‘Logie 3’. A further site visit with Sally Foster and Rod McCullagh followed to reassess this fragment, and it quickly became apparent that ‘Logie 3’ was likely to be the ‘lost’ Logie 2. Although the rediscovered Logie 2 fragment is difficult to assess due to it being built into a wall-head, it does appear to be the end portion of a hogback. It is decorated on both sides with a least two rows of tegulation, and so it conforms with Lacaille’s description. In terms of Lang’s typology, it is likely a fragment of an 11th-century hogback of the Scottish Type B2 – Plain Tegulated Type. This new understanding means that the preliminary identifications of the stones recently considered to be the ‘lost’ Logie 2 and ‘Logie 3’ are now incorrect, and this entry should serve as both a correction and update.

The mixed pile contains three carved stones that appear to belong together and are decorated on one side with tegulation that appears different from Logie 2. Could these be the stones that Lacaille was told were thrown onto the stream bank, and part of a different monument? A fourth stone bears tegulation of a different type. It is not known when and how this pile of stones was accumulated in the graveyard, but presumably since Lang visited.

The Logie carved stone collection thus contains not two but a minimum of four stones: one complete hogback (Logie 1), one end portion of a hogback (Logie 2), and fragments of at least two other decorated stones. Digital survey of all the Logie fragments will help to resolve how many hogbacks are represented by the surviving decorated stones. I am grateful to Sally and Rod for their helpful observations and for allowing me the use of their photographs. (See Front Cover, Image 2).

Jamie Barnes – Historic England

(Source: DES Volume 21)