Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Hugh Levey's avatar

A very interesting read Fiona. I enjoyed following you down this particular rabbit hole. You said there weren't any other paired Pictish stones. Had you considered the two Newton Stones as a possible pair of pillars? I haven't checked my notes but I'm pretty sure that Kelly Kilpatrick believes they were originally together.

Expand full comment
Rod McCullagh's avatar

Our excavation around Sueno’s stone was not an altogether comfortable experience. Constrained by the footprint of the foundations of the glass box and obliged to investigate this shape in a disjointed sequence of jig-saw shapes, our extraction of an even semi-sensible working interpretation proved painful. Our post-excavation analysis was designed to narrow the uncertainties but new ones emerged in the process. The interpretation sequence went from the field evidence - two adjacent, penannular post settings - to questions on contemporaneity (unanswered), shared function (case not proven but possibly) and then sought corroboration or insight from the documentary sources. The weaknesses of our data lie in our abilities and in the random sample of Sueno’s Stone’s surroundings that the modern footprint imposed. I do wonder whether, if we could look more broadly around other stones, as Gordon Noble has done at Rhynie, would we find more evidence for multiple settings or multiple stones. Many thanks for your very interesting, well-researched thoughts on the two Sueno’s Stones idea. To be honest, I pushed that idea out as I felt duty bound to stimulate interest and argument and to make the case for better excavation and better collaboration in future early medieval investigations. Rhynie makes my point!

Expand full comment
13 more comments...

No posts