Publication Account
Event ID 887252
Category Descriptive Accounts
Type Publication Account
Permalink http://canmore.org.uk/event/887252
These two granite stones stand on a south-facing terrace some 300m north of Dunecht School. Set about 3m apart, the western (A) presents a pear-shaped profile to the south, measuring a maximum of 1.6m by 0.9m and 2.9m in height, while its eastern neighbour (B), a slab measuring 1.8m by 0.55m and 2.1m in height, has an asymmetric profile that appears to arch over towards the east. The taller western stone has been reused as a Pictish symbol stone and bears the incised outline of a mirror case and a mirror-and-comb on its south face (Fraser 2008, 34, no. 36). Which also has a single cupmark on its west side. Lying on the dump of field gathered stones that has collected around them there is a large boulder (C) measuring 2.9m in length by 1.4m in breadth. The origin of this boulder is unknown, though in 1865 the OS surveyors annotated the two stones Stone Circle (Remains of) (Aberdeenshire 1869, lxxiii). The entry in the Name Book identifies them as one of ‘the three druidical temples in the district, of the usual circular form’ mentioned in the Statistical Account (x, 1794, 248 note) and claims the other stones had been broken up to build field walls (Name Book, Aberdeenshire, No. 15, p 68). If the boulder now lying between the two stones was part of a circle, it must have been buried rather than broken up. It is a relatively recent addition and was not present when Coles visited the stones in 1902 (1903a, 83–4) or when James Ritchie photographed them in 1904 (RCAHMS AB4830). The suggestion that these are the remains of a recumbent stone circle comes from Coles, who had no doubt that he was looking at the flankers of a recumbent setting. This assessment has been generally accepted ever since (Burl 1970, 78; 1976a, 352, Abn 80; 2000, 421, Abn 83; Ruggles 1999, 187 no. 69, 266 note 14), though both Ruggles (1984, 57 note r, 60) and Barnatt (1989, 463, no. 6:147) have raised the possibility that they might be part of a four-poster setting or simply a two-stone alignment. The present survey has tended to this latter view and has not found Coles’ hypothesis entirely convincing. Compared with the flankers of other recumbent settings, this pair is unusual; more typically the profile of the eastern slab would suggest that the recumbent lay to its east rather than between them. However, excavation could resolve the issue.
