PECULIAR CUPPED STONES FOUN COLMONELLN DI , AYRSHIRE3 18 .

II.

ON SOME PECULIAR CUPPED STONES FOUND IN THE 1'ARISH OF COLMONELL, . BY JOHN AITIvEN. LL.D., F.R.S., F.S.A. SCOT.

In the Archaeological and Historical Collections relating to the d Wigtownan Countiesr Ay f thero a pape s i en voli r . iii.. 106p , , entitled "Early Christian Remains in Ayrshire." In this paper is described a stone found on the lands of Prieston, in the parish of Colmonell. This stone was found in a field at the foot of the I'rieston Hill, near the , when ploughing rather deeper than usual. s restinwa blu n t I o g e tiln fro i l fee3 m3 fee inche6 o tt t f loamo s . After lying expose r somfo d eremoves yearwa t si 187n di Barganyo 7t , , restswherw no .t ei This ston s describei e a compac s a d t porphyrite boulders i d an , 3 feet 5 inches in length and breadth and 1 foot 9 inches deep. The stone incheinche5 4 1 1 th cu e s othered n i pi s th an diametey ; wa e on r its extreme depth is 8 inches. The peculiarity of this cup or bowl is that the edge of the bowl projects all round it above the surface of papeworde e th th e f rso us referre o rocke t , th rese f aboveor th o ,dt o t : ''The necking, abou n inc a t n thicknessi h , rises externall 2 inchey s abov e stoneth e , which roun e entirth d e circumferenc bowe s th f lha e o been carefully hewn down wit ha curve d sectio breadta o t n f abouo h t 3 inches. .... Beyond these unmistakable traces of human workman- ship the stone presents no indications whatever whether the object serve seculas dwa sacred.r pape:o e r y write e th sa f Th r o o "t rgoe n o s " Such cavities artificially groune preparatioth r o dfo n y f graib o n e nar means infrequent eithe n boulderi r native th r eo s f merelrocki t bu ; y designed for daily use and so domestic a purpose, that the stone should have been hewn away so far below the lip or edge of the bowl it is difficul believe.o t t " Beside e paperwritee th th s f o ,r other authorities have considere n earla d e ythib samplso t ston p f humao ecu e n work- 184 PROCEEDINGS OF THE SOCIETY, FEBRUARY 10, 1908.

f theso manshipe e on authoritie d an , s seemed incline idee th a o that d t it was a rude font. This • Priest's Stone, as it is called, is evidently considered to be the work of man; but I think I will be able to give good reason r doubtinfo s g this conclusion r considerinfo d an , g that i t is a product of nature's workshop. I cannot help thinking that the something whic e calhw l chanc a hanhavy d n influencindi ma eha e g e finderth f thio s s man's stona t i o loos et n workmanshipo k e facTh t . that it was found on a bit of land called Prieston may have offered the subtle suggestion that it was connected in some way with priestcraft. This cnpped ston s representei e fign , i whichd1 . , however, doet no s sho e bow wth o clearl s l s coula y e wishedb de ston Th s i lyine. g under trees, and the light on the day it was photographed was too uniform, and as there was not time to put up a screen to cut the light e takeb a dull o n t i n, d unifor e sideha ofon t i f, m light. However, the raised lip of the bowl is quite evident, and its appearance does give some suppor e suggestioth o t t f humao n n workmanship t froe Bu mth . e naturrocth I kverf o e y much questio workmany an f i n , even with modern chisels t suc, ou n thacouli a hlippe t tp cu dharcu d an d brittle rock. What causedoubo t humae e dth m t n workmanshi f thio p s stone was, f thaClachantoo t p durinto e e a nnortth gwal th o f Hil t ko ho t l Colmonell, when near the summit, I found another cupped stone having e samsomth f eo e characteristic s e Priest'ath s s Stone, namelye th , cup surrounded by the projecting lip. This stone is shown in the illustratio r distinctiofo d nan e wil, (fig w n2) e Clachanto l. th cal t i l n Stone t wilI noticee . lb d tha thin i projecttp s cu cas e esth sidfroe meon remaininp e onlcu th ye s i th par n tha p f o gli o t te e th stone oth d f an , e boulde th e res f th side o t t tha l a r al , t part being weathered awayo s , that the downward extension of the lip forms nearly one half of the cup. When talking over these cupped stones wit Douganr hM presene th , t tenan f Garnaburno t , whose father foun e Priest'th d s Stone e tolh , d me of another cupped stone lying on his farm, and kindly pointed it out to me, otherwise I would never have found it, as it is all but

186 PROCEEDINGS OF THE SOCIETY, FEBRUARY 10, 1908.

covered over with soil, only a small piece of the top being visible. This ston wese eth liete n Priesto o slopsth f o e n Hill, about one-third of the way up. This stone, which we will call the Garnaburn Stone, being lande founth f than so d o t name uncoveres wa , photographedd dan , e resulth s e showillustratiod i tth an n i n s wile seenA nb l . (fig, 3) . n thii sp stoncu e eth bear a greas t resemblance, thoug a smalle n ho r scale, to the Priest's Stone. The lip surrounding the cup is in marked evidencee hollowinth e stond th an ,en i n gi surroundin s a p li e th g the Priest's Stone is also evident. This hollowing round the lip has, I expect e reasonth f r concludin,o beesfo e non g tha Priest'e th t s Stone wae worth s f manko . All three stones were found within a mile of each other, nearly in a line lyin t differena gl al easd west t an t bu ,elevations e Priest'th : s Stone bein e southerg th e founfoo f th o tt da n e Priestoslopth f eo n Hill to the east of the others; the one found on the Clachanton Hill being to the west, and 500 feet above sea-level; while the third or Garnahum Stone was found nearly midway between the two. and about midway between their elevations. All of the stones have been photographed from the same distance and with the same lens, so they are all shown to the same scale, but I may s wela l give dimensionth e e cup th measurementy f sb o s alreads A . y stated, the Priest's Stone (fig. 1) is 14 inches in diameter one way and inche5 1 othere inche8 sth y b , s deep. These measurement froe e sar m th pape n thio r s stone t checalreadno d k e di ythe se I referre mo s t a , to d if the lip of the bowl had been broken since it was found. In the Clachanto 0 inche1 s i ns p longesStoncu e eth t (fig) diamete2 . d an r 9 inches the least, by 7£ inches deep. The cup in the Garnaburn Stone (fig. 3), is 7-| inches one way and 6-£ inches the other, by 4-|- inches deep. With regard to the nature of these stones, they seem to be all erratic boulders, their composition being quite different from that of the rock of the district. I submitted a small piece of the Clachanton Stone to Dr Peach, and he tells me that the microscopic examination has shown

8 18 PROCEEDING SOCIETYE TH F O S , FEBRUAE , 1908Y10 .

it to be a Silurian Graywacke which has been contact-altered. The Garnaburn Stone r HomD , s ei als , tello me Graywackes e th s A . natur f theseo e erratic boulder s oftesi n extremely difficul o determint t e without thorough microscopic examination t i seem, s probable thae th t Priest's Stone is also of the same nature as the others. As I had not permission I did not chip a sample for examination. In the Garnaburn Stone there are indications of there having been another cup, but only sligh t p parillustrae fragment li seee th b te n ni n remainth - ca f o d s an , e fracturtione hardeneTh th . f o e p par li df thi o t s ston s differenei t frobouldere th mrese f t th looko I that f . o ts differen unaidee th o t t d eye, and under a magnifying lens appears more crystalline. As to how these peculiar lipped cups were produced by nature is rather obscure. It is evident they cannot be the result of strains such as the cup basaln i sothe d an t r igneou sthen rocksca y r havno t ; eou beeg ndu actioe t hole th e actio po f wate y th ns o sb a stones d f winy no b an r r d no , and sand, as none of these processes would explain the projecting lip. If I might hazard an explanation I would suggest that they may have been formed in the following way :—The Graywacke of which these boulders is composed being a sedimentary rock, may have had encased in it water- worn stones of some size. These water-worn stones would naturally be of a different composition from the surrounding sedimentary matter; and whil mase e th f rocundergoins so kwa g alteratio heaty nb , some chemical exchanges would take place betwee e encloseth n e d th stone d an s surrounding rock \vthiy n I e .couls wa d imagin roce eth k immediately sur- roundin enclosee gth d stones might becom changeablo e es b eo t after s da - wards bette resiso t r weatherine th t g action bouldere tha th e res f nth o t . When the boulders with the enclosed stones were afterwards exposed to weathee th coule w r d imagin e encloseeth d stones being more susceptible to change than the rest of the rock, and if exposed would soon weather away and leave a hollow, and we could even imagine these enclosed stonee sourceb o t sf weakness o swatee d exchangeth an r d ai an , f o s might cause them to burst the boulders. It is interesting to notice in this connection that in all three cups there is just about half a complete

0 19 PROCEEDING SOCIETYE TH F O S , FEBRUAR , 190810 Y .

sphere, which is what one would expect if the boulder had been burst e expansiobyth weatheriny nb e encloseth f go d stonese boulderth f i , s wer f uniforo e m f texturabouo d t an eequa l thicknes l rounsal d them. Clachantoe th n I d G-arnaburnan n stone depte sth rathes hi r more than half the diameter, but this might result from the resistance upwards to bursting being less than downwards—that is, to the enclosed stone being nearer the top than bottom of the boulder, or to the enclosed stone t beinno s g quite spherical. This theory of the formation of these peculiar lipped cups is put forward for lack of a better. But whatever explanation be adopted, we must remember it has to explain the different appearance of the fracture of the part of the rock forming the lip from the fracture of the rest of the boulder, and the better weather-resisting quality of this part of the rock which has enabled the outside lining of the cup to remain while the inside and outside have weathered away. If this changed condition o somt e e du chemica t no s i l p exchangecu e th parp li f o te s o th witf h enclosed foreign matter, then some other theory will require to be devised. However, this paper is not geological, and I fear its very nature bars it being archaeological, as the point to which attention is directed is, that there reaso o in s Priest'e supposinr th nfo n i sp Stongcu w thae eno th t at Bargany has been the work of man, as other stones similarly worked natury b e have been neighbourhooe founth n i d e sitth e f frodo m which it was taken.