Dobrudden Look-alike?

147baildon03chrisc12553.jpgimg_0564-600-x-700.jpg

 

Hi Folks,

Jumble Jim posted a question about a decorated stone (right) which he found on his property but couldn’t find a way to upload a photo to TMA.

This blog may provide an URL for his photo which we may post on TMA.

Jim thought ‘his’ stone looked a bit like the Dobrudden Caravan Park stone (left, photo by Chris Collyer).

I hope this discussion will be continued on TMA!

Thanks!

Jan

Advertisements

4 Responses to Dobrudden Look-alike?

  1. Jumble Jim says:

    Had a look (again) at the Boston Spa stones and can see similarities in the markings to those on stone 3 of the Alford stones.

  2. Jim Talbot says:

    Thanks for the feedback Hobsonish….stone 1 has similar markings across its entire surface, which is complex in shape. Stones 2 and 3 have been examined by two professional geologists who confirm that the markings are not plough marks but are more likely to have been incised by hand. The archaeologists who have seen them have agreed on this point but have largely been at a loss to offer an age or an explanation (with the exception of one archaeologist whom I trust implicitly). Stone 4 was described by the “professional” archaeologists as simply an old stone that someone has scratched a few marks on! What is wrong with these people? I spoke to an archaeologist (who will remain nameless) at RCAHMS who admitted that he rarely gets out into the field and makes most of his judgements from maps and photographs….need I say what his views on these stones were….but then these attitudes are precisely why so much interesting material has been missed!

  3. hobsonish says:

    Stone 1 looks like it might be shallow cups, rather weathered. Maybe some more pics of the stone whilst wet, wih low light would help?

    2&3 look a bit too much like plough marks for my liking. Though the bottom of 2, o the photo of it upright, could be pecked grooves. also, if they are plough marks, 3 must have not half blunted a few ploughs. The curved lines sugests that if it was a plough, it must hae hit the stone quite hard and bent. Maybe. Or they could be ard marks. Both of which assume the stone was once below turf in a cultivated field of course.

    Stone 4 looks runic, almost oghamish, were it not for the angle at the top of the main line.

  4. rockartuk says:

    With Jumble Jim’s permission, we added the Alford Stones to BRAC in the following collection:
    http://rockartuk.fotopic.net/c1228191.html

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: