Excavations at Kintraw, Argyll, 1979

Transcription

1 Excavations at Kintraw, Argyll, 1979 T G Cowie, MA Summary The standing stone at Kintraw fell in March 1979 and, before being re-erected, its socket was investigated. This proved to be relatively shallow compared with the height of the stone but firm packing and careful ing balanc- had evidently ensured its stability. Introduction The site at Kintraw lies on a level 40 m above quartzite spur approximately sea level, overlooking Loch Craignish Argyll in (NGR: NM ). A prominent standing stone c.4.25 m high with a pronounced lean to the NW stood, until the winter of , between the two cairns investigated by Mr D D A Simpson in 1959 and 1960 (Simpson, 1967, 54-9). As a result of a combination of severe frosts and heavy rain however, the stone fell to the ground in the course of the hard winter of 1979, but this is perhaps best seen as the culmination of a more longterm process of loosening of the stone through frost action and unrecorded dis- of the turbance in the past. The toppling stone was brought to the attention of the Inspectorate of Ancient Monuments offices of Dr E W through the good MacKie of the Hunterian Museum, University of Glasgow, and Miss M Campbell of Kilberry, Argyll, and it was immediately decided that the stone should be set upright again. It was felt that since this would involve the destruction of the immediate area of the stone, the socket of the stone should be investigated prior re-erection. to To this end, a small excavation was carried out under the direction of the writer immediately prior to the reerection of the stone by machine into its original socket. With its base consolidated with concrete, the stone has now been reset in a vertical position. Excavation The standing stone had fallen northwards so as to lie almost due N-S: in at its base a falling the stone had displaced large quantity of loose stones, turf and loam, which lay partly on the stone itself and partly on the surrounding grass. Underneath the base of the stone could be seen the hole in which it had stood, now filled with loose earth and rubble. Differential weathering and lichen growth showed the stone to have stood in the ground to a depth of approximately 1.00 m. The stone lay in a grassed area through which stones could be felt, or seen to protrude. This stony spread was assumed to be debris from the flanks of the larger cairn (Simpson, 1967, Cairn A), perhaps augmented by the spread footings of an old field bank running E-W across the spur and abutting the W side of the large cairn just S of the standing A stone. trench was laid out to accommodate the base of the stone and its stonehole (fig. 1): the area of the excavation was restricted by the requirements for re-erection which stipulated approximately a trench 3.00 m by 3.50 m and prohibited movement of the stone. This specification made formal investigation the of stone-hole awkward, and excavation and recording had to be carried out in the available space under the recumbent base of the stone. The natural subsoil was removed to an average depth of 0.70 m over the whole trench to facilitate this task. 27

2 2 j Metres stone packing 1 turf 2 reddish-brown loam 3 weak discontinuous iron pan 4 orange grave, KINTRAW I979 5 bedrock Fig. 1. Kintraw: plan of area excavated, showing outline of fallen stone and position of stone-hole, and cross-section (E-VV) through stone-hole. 28

3 The overall length of the stone is 5.25 m while its width varies from mat base to less than 0.60 m at the expanded its tip. In cross-section the stone varies from an almost cylindrical, or D-shape at its ends to a roughly trapezoid shape the S face has the N face centrally. When standing thus a marked spine in places, being noticeably flat in contrast. A distinct groove on the W edge approximately 2.20 m from the base appears to unrecorded represent an attempt to split the stone, the estimated weight of which is over three tons. It was immediately apparent that the collapse of the stone had resulted in the almost total disarrangement of any tural struc- features of the stone-hole on the S side, where the base of the stone caused from the most damage when emerging ground (fig. 1). On the N and NW side, however, the stone packing survived, although in places tightly compressed against the edges of the original stonehole by the weight of the stone when leaning (pi. 2). The packing surviving in situ amounted to approximately 30 mixed angular and rounded stones of varying size, but including many substantial boulders up to 0.50 m by 0.30 m by 0.20 m. Some soil filled the interstices of the packing stones and the edge of the pit but, for the most part, the stones were closely wedged together to form a tightly keyed, solidly packed mass of stone. Even allowing for the disturbance of the stone-hole in the course of the fall of the monolith, it seems unlikely that the S edge of the pit prepared for the reception of the stone was ever as tightly packed with stone. This factor to the eventual lean and ultimate fall of the stone. There were nevertheless no obvious indications of large scale disturbance may have been a contributory of the stone-hole, the only clear such shallow depression filled with being gritty a loam on the surface at the NW edge of the stone-hole. However, this appeared to be more in keeping with trampling or puddling of the soil by animals rather than deliberate excavation. It became clear, therefore, that the stone had been set directly on to subsoil, perhaps somewhat eccentrically prepared into oval a socket c.l.30x1.00 m, aligned approximately NE-SW, and dug to a depth of only c m into the subsoil. There were no indications of a prepared base of stones nor, despite careful search, any deliberate deposits of quartz, charcoal or cremated bone to accompany the erection of the stone or infilling of its socket. Scattered quartz fragments lay in profusion in the turf and upper fill of the stone-hole, but in view of their natural occurrence in large quantities in the subsoil on the spur, this need not be significant, at least in the absence of firm evidence for deliberate deposition. Similarly, one or two comminuted flecks of charcoal did occur in the fill of the these occurred in stone-hole, but equally the deeper root holes penetrating the subsoil. Discussion In view of its very limited aims, and in the absence of any significant finds or dateable deposits in the stone-hole, the excavation has added little to our understanding of the site at Kintraw, which has figured prominently in the discussions of the possible astronomical significance megalithic of sites (eg Thorn, 1967, 154; 1971, 36; MacKie, 1974, 178) and it is not proposed to speculate further on these aspects of the site. The excavation does however provide an addition to the body of evidence for the techniques employed in the erection of large monoliths. Ritchie has noted that the basic distinctions in on the size and technique tend to depend shape of the base of the stone (1974, 186). Comparison of the tall, pillar-like Kintraw stone, eccentrically set into a stone-andearth packed stone-hole, may be made with the upright stone at Orwell (Kinrossshire) investigated by Ritchie (1974, 8-9). 29

4

5 This may be contrasted with the technique of setting what tend to be squatter monoliths, with lower centres of gravity, on to prepared beds of stone or, lightly chocked, into shallow depressions. In any case, whatever its function, the survival of the Kintraw stone in an upright yet leaning position in such a disproportionately small socket testifies to considerable engineering skill and confident stonehandling on the part of the community concerned with its erection. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The excavation was conducted on behalf of the Ancient Monuments Branch of the Scottish Development Department. Best thanks are due to Mr Hugh MacKay, Kintraw Farm, for permission to excavate. The writer would like to thank O Elmhirst, G Brown and N Newton for assisting in the excavation. Finally the re-erection of the stone would not have been possible without the efforts of Mr Neil McPhee and the members of the Ancient Monuments Area works squad. BIBLIOGRAPHY MacKie, E W 1974 'Archaeological tests on supposed prehistoric astronomical sites in Scotland'. Phil Trans R Soc Lond, 276 (1974), RITCHIE, J N G 1974a 'Excavation of the Stone Circle and Cairn at Balbirnie, Fife'. Archaeol J, 131 (1974), RITCHIE, J N G 1974b 'The Catstane'. Proc Soc AntiqScot, 105 ( ), SIMPSON, D D A 1967 'Excavations at Kintraw, Argyll'. Proc Soc Antiq Scot, 99 ( ), THOM, A 1967 Megalithic Sites in Britain. Oxford. THOM, A 1971 Megalithic Lunar Observatories. Oxford. This paper was pul)lished with the aid of a grant from the Scottish Development Department. 31