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!
such a great deep dive! Would love to think of a pair in that region, especially--there was so much happening in that part of Scotland at roughly that time...
Aside from all of the historical data, about which I have absolutely no clue, I do wonder if it might be possible that a second stone could have been complementary rather than identical. That there would have been something other than a cross on that side.
I don't think it could be the fish, bc that was a secret symbol of Christianity and wouldn't make much sense when paired with a cross right there in the open. But while there is only one Christ, he is supposed to be part of a trinity. I can't remember if there have been alpha/omega symbols or doves or whatever found on stones, but it seems like there should be something that could work as a companion to a cross. I
'm sure this is all reaching, but I really like the possibility of 2 stones, too. It appeals to both my fondness for symmetry and sense of grandeur, lol.
I guess your previous blog on Altyre rules out the possibility that it stood beside Sueno's Stone. That's a good observation about Auquhorthies on Pont.
While it's true nothing is certain, that's a little too much evidence against for my pragmatic brain. However, I must have more of a whimsical soul, bc I apparently can't completely smother a tiny spark of hope that something at least quasi-mystical turns up.
It's all that dramatic landscape, history and folklore. It's impossible to remain entirely pragmatic in the face of it, lol.
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!
such a great deep dive! Would love to think of a pair in that region, especially--there was so much happening in that part of Scotland at roughly that time...
Aside from all of the historical data, about which I have absolutely no clue, I do wonder if it might be possible that a second stone could have been complementary rather than identical. That there would have been something other than a cross on that side.
I don't think it could be the fish, bc that was a secret symbol of Christianity and wouldn't make much sense when paired with a cross right there in the open. But while there is only one Christ, he is supposed to be part of a trinity. I can't remember if there have been alpha/omega symbols or doves or whatever found on stones, but it seems like there should be something that could work as a companion to a cross. I
'm sure this is all reaching, but I really like the possibility of 2 stones, too. It appeals to both my fondness for symmetry and sense of grandeur, lol.
I guess your previous blog on Altyre rules out the possibility that it stood beside Sueno's Stone. That's a good observation about Auquhorthies on Pont.
Fascinating and intriguing article Fiona.. Thanks.
<disappoint face>
While it's true nothing is certain, that's a little too much evidence against for my pragmatic brain. However, I must have more of a whimsical soul, bc I apparently can't completely smother a tiny spark of hope that something at least quasi-mystical turns up.
It's all that dramatic landscape, history and folklore. It's impossible to remain entirely pragmatic in the face of it, lol.