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.
Thanks Hugh - yes that's a good call on the Newton Stones. I don't think I was very aware of them when I wrote this blog. All the same, I do think Sueno's Stone was only ever one pillar. The second pattern of post-holes that Rod McCullagh found does suggest a second installation of some sort, but the lack of a central socket stone (or a hole for one) surely rules out another stone pillar.
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!
Hi Rod, thank you very much indeed for your comment - yes I can imagine it wasn't the most accommodating site to excavate, and it surely won't get any better now. Thank you for producing such a thorough report; it's an immensely valuable source, especially given the lack of any contemporary (or even near-contemporary) documentary evidence. I think the two adjacent settings still need explaining so I hope the door isn't fully closed to further investigation. In my own research I'm looking for other potentially-associated sites in the area, along with a historical context, so hopefully there will be more early medieval excavations to come!
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.
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...
Thanks Freya - there must have been a lot happening; lots of Viking activity and some internal conflict too, although we only get tiny glimpses in the historical records. I think in some ways Sueno's Stone is the most complex and complete text we have from early medieval Moray. If only we could actually read it...
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.
Thanks Rebecca - yes indeed, the other stone needn't have been identical, but what's lacking is any examples of other 'pairs' of pillars to suggest what iconography might have been used on the second one. If it was normal to have pairs of pillars in the 9th/10th century, I'd be more convinced! As it is, the Hendersons looked to Roman architecture to find an example that made sense, and even then, the columns of Trajan and Marcus Aurelius are single monuments, not a pair.
True, such strong tradition does make it less likely. And if it wouldn't be for your final evidence showing the possibility of another being raised, that would easily be counterweight to the rest. But seeing that evidence *is* there, it reminds me that people don't always follow tradition. And wouldn't those who would deliberately create a stone "on an unusually ambitious scale" also be the type of people to double down and create two, in spite of tradition, lol?
I think the key has to be who built it and what was it supposed to be a portal to? It's more than possible that you've already covered this and I don't remember. If so, please point me in that direction, bc I am now fully invested in this theory of two stones and what lay behind them once you passed through. This has become the stuff of fairy tales, Fiona, I'm actually not sure I want to know the truth, which is the exact opposite of the history buff I usually am.
Ha, this made me laugh! Absolutely: the key has to lie in who built it and for what. Unfortunately, both those things are completely unknown. We don't know who raised the stone (or stones, but I'll come to that), when, or what for. There aren't really any comparable stones to compare it with (even as one stone, let alone two).
If it was a portal (I'm fairly sure it wasn't), it might have led to the royal peninsula of Burghead/Duffus/Kinneddar. You might have gone through it and then over the bridge at Kinloss (which I wrote about here: https://fortrenn.substack.com/p/military-or-monastic-deciphering) to reach that royal domain.
I kept the final evidence bit in because I didn't want to spoil the story for people who like to think there might have been two stones. But the problem with the second pattern of post-holes is that there's no evidence at all of a central socket stone into which a second pillar would have fitted. And the carbon dates that came back from the post-holes around the actual stone were mostly 11th and 12th century, which is very probably later than the stone itself - and might mean the structures were used for some sort of big event around the stone, rather than the actual raising of it. But nothing is certain, which is why I enjoy this topic so much.
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.
Thank you, Katherine - yes indeed, I did once think that Altyre might have been the second pillar, but there's pretty clear evidence it came from Roseisle. (For a future blog, and probably the dissertation, I'll consider whether the two might have been in a Dupplin/Invermay-type relationship, though. All thoughts on that front very welcome!)
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.
Thanks Hugh - yes that's a good call on the Newton Stones. I don't think I was very aware of them when I wrote this blog. All the same, I do think Sueno's Stone was only ever one pillar. The second pattern of post-holes that Rod McCullagh found does suggest a second installation of some sort, but the lack of a central socket stone (or a hole for one) surely rules out another stone pillar.
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!
Hi Rod, thank you very much indeed for your comment - yes I can imagine it wasn't the most accommodating site to excavate, and it surely won't get any better now. Thank you for producing such a thorough report; it's an immensely valuable source, especially given the lack of any contemporary (or even near-contemporary) documentary evidence. I think the two adjacent settings still need explaining so I hope the door isn't fully closed to further investigation. In my own research I'm looking for other potentially-associated sites in the area, along with a historical context, so hopefully there will be more early medieval excavations to come!
<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.
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...
Thanks Freya - there must have been a lot happening; lots of Viking activity and some internal conflict too, although we only get tiny glimpses in the historical records. I think in some ways Sueno's Stone is the most complex and complete text we have from early medieval Moray. If only we could actually read it...
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.
Thanks Rebecca - yes indeed, the other stone needn't have been identical, but what's lacking is any examples of other 'pairs' of pillars to suggest what iconography might have been used on the second one. If it was normal to have pairs of pillars in the 9th/10th century, I'd be more convinced! As it is, the Hendersons looked to Roman architecture to find an example that made sense, and even then, the columns of Trajan and Marcus Aurelius are single monuments, not a pair.
True, such strong tradition does make it less likely. And if it wouldn't be for your final evidence showing the possibility of another being raised, that would easily be counterweight to the rest. But seeing that evidence *is* there, it reminds me that people don't always follow tradition. And wouldn't those who would deliberately create a stone "on an unusually ambitious scale" also be the type of people to double down and create two, in spite of tradition, lol?
I think the key has to be who built it and what was it supposed to be a portal to? It's more than possible that you've already covered this and I don't remember. If so, please point me in that direction, bc I am now fully invested in this theory of two stones and what lay behind them once you passed through. This has become the stuff of fairy tales, Fiona, I'm actually not sure I want to know the truth, which is the exact opposite of the history buff I usually am.
Ha, this made me laugh! Absolutely: the key has to lie in who built it and for what. Unfortunately, both those things are completely unknown. We don't know who raised the stone (or stones, but I'll come to that), when, or what for. There aren't really any comparable stones to compare it with (even as one stone, let alone two).
If it was a portal (I'm fairly sure it wasn't), it might have led to the royal peninsula of Burghead/Duffus/Kinneddar. You might have gone through it and then over the bridge at Kinloss (which I wrote about here: https://fortrenn.substack.com/p/military-or-monastic-deciphering) to reach that royal domain.
I kept the final evidence bit in because I didn't want to spoil the story for people who like to think there might have been two stones. But the problem with the second pattern of post-holes is that there's no evidence at all of a central socket stone into which a second pillar would have fitted. And the carbon dates that came back from the post-holes around the actual stone were mostly 11th and 12th century, which is very probably later than the stone itself - and might mean the structures were used for some sort of big event around the stone, rather than the actual raising of it. But nothing is certain, which is why I enjoy this topic so much.
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.
Thank you, Katherine - yes indeed, I did once think that Altyre might have been the second pillar, but there's pretty clear evidence it came from Roseisle. (For a future blog, and probably the dissertation, I'll consider whether the two might have been in a Dupplin/Invermay-type relationship, though. All thoughts on that front very welcome!)
Fascinating and intriguing article Fiona.. Thanks.
Ahh, thanks Colin!