The Leochel-Cushnie stone circle in Aberdeenshire, which turns out to be around 20 years old.
Followers of this blog will be familiar with the Neolithic Quarrying hoax perpetrated by Mike Parker Pearson and his merry band of diggers -- as covered here:
https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2018/11/the-bluestone-quarries-best-hoax-since.html
Now comes another one -- this from from Scotland, and relating to a supposedly Neolithic stone circle:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-46946652
'Ancient' Aberdeenshire stone circle found to be replica
An Aberdeenshire stone circle initially thought to be thousands of years old has been identified as a modern replica.An investigation into the site at the parish of Leochel-Cushnie found the stones to be about 20 years old.
It was originally thought to be the site of a recumbent stone circle - until the man who built it came forward.
The findings sparked excitement among experts and were widely reported.
They were initially celebrated as an authentic recumbent stone circle by Adam Welfare of Historic Environment Scotland and Aberdeenshire Council's Archaeology Service.
Further archaeological analysis of the stones was being conducted when a former owner of the farm contacted Mr Welfare to say he had built the stone circle in the 1990s.
'Great feature'
Neil Ackerman, historic environment record assistant at Aberdeenshire Council, said the development was "disappointing", but hoped the site would still be appreciated.
He said: "I hope the stones continue to be used and enjoyed - while not ancient it is still in a fantastic location and makes for a great feature in the landscape.
"These types of monument are notoriously difficult to date."
Recumbent stone circles were constructed about 3,500 to 4,500 years ago and are unique to the north east of Scotland.
Their defining feature is a large horizontal stone flanked by two upright stones, usually situated between the south-east to south-west of the circle.
It's not certain that the farmer who built this stone circle intended to fool anybody, but the archaeologists have certainly got egg on their faces......... the farmer probably just thought he would have a bit of fun and lighten up the miserable lives of the gullible masses.
Of course, we have a similar "replica" here in Pembrokeshire, on land belonging to the Brithdir Community -- and used for assorted mysterious ceremonies. In the Brithdir case, the builders of the circle do claim that at least some of the stones were recumbent, and that there was something significant before all their stone-setting work started........
So when is a hoax a hoax?
The modern stone circle at Brithdir Mawr, near Newport in Pembrokeshire
You have another replica modern stone circle in Pembrokeshire, near singer and broadcaster Cerys Matthews' parents house, at Aber Draw, Trefin, just below where my brother lives.
ReplyDeleteIf i were to visit Salisbury Plain with shovel in hand and proceed to dig a large hole and then to drop a large stone into the hole, trapping below it an ancient antler pick.Then a couple of hundred years later an archaeologist came along and excavated the stone,could we expect him to get the correct date of when the stone was placed there?
ReplyDeleteNo -- if you could get a C14 date on the antler, that would tell you when the antler was shed by a deer, which might give you a steer (no pun intended) as to the date on which it was turned into a pick. The hole could not be younger than the antler pick, unless the pick remained in use for a long time and was used by several generations of diggers. The placing of a stone into the hole could not have occurred at a date earlier than the date on which the antler was shed -- but it might have occurred soon after the antler found its way into the pit, or maybe very long after, if there was a lot of messing about with stone settings etc. There might be further confusion if the diggers of the hole or the placers of the stone put into the hole a very ancient antler, if it was a "revered relic".......... so that's all as clear as mud then......... !!
ReplyDeleteI have had to draw attention to some of the realities of radiocarbon dating with respect to the famous "monolith extraction point" at Rhosyfelin, where MPP has made the simplest of simplistic assumptions about the relations between one thing and another.
So MPPs paper on the dating of the placing of the stones can be discounted.Could it not be possible that the Bluestone circle is the original circle and the "Great Carbuncle" is a folly?
ReplyDeleteThere is a lot that seems dodgy about the use of organic materials in pits for the dating of stone settings. I doubt that the bluestone circle is the "original circle" since there appear to be masses of sockets and old pits that suggest that the stones were moved about on many occasions. But I agree that the bluestones -- or maybe just some of them -- might have been on the site before the big sarsens were moved in. And of course various "experts" have argued that the Altar Stone is in its original position -- used recumbent, where found. That might just be the explanation for Stonehenge being where it is.
ReplyDelete