The symbol carving process as a mnemonic manipulator of ‘deep’ genealogy in Early Medieval Scotland

ABSTRACT

Scotland’s corpus of Early Medieval carved stone monuments is a rich dataset for explorations of cultural connections, power and ideology. This article explores how meaning and significance might be interpreted from the reuse of prehistoric stone monuments in the Pictish period via close examination of the materiality, landscape and transformation processes of one case study from Nether Corskie, Aberdeenshire. Technologies of transformation of the existing stone are considered and contextualized as evidence of contemporary concerns and manipulations of concepts and memories of genealogy, ancestry and place.

Introduction

Scotland’s Early Medieval dataset of carved stones is a rich archaeological resource, which continues to inspire and enable new investigations into ideological and political contexts and social and landscape organization. This paper explores one theme of the dataset – that of the reuse or possible reuse of prehistoric standing stones for Pictish Class I monuments. Instead of approaching the monument only as a final product, I want to focus on the processes and choices behind making the stones. This sees the carving process as a symbolic action critical to a monument’s meaning(s) and one that works to identify the importance of craft activities as technologies with social, religious and other dimensions. This paper considers how reuse of the physicality of the past for creating new monumental statements in stone played a role in this; how the practice or process of creating monuments and specifically the act of reuse carries ideological importance. This adds to discussions on how we develop more subtle and precise explorations of the acts of carving in Early Medieval commemorative strategies and potential contexts for the choices and narratives they embody and facilitate. The paper explores how evidence of reuse can be argued to be part of Pictish strategies for building connections to the past and the ancestral genealogical stories of the Early Medieval landscape. After briefly reviewing existing scholarship on approaches to symbol stones, this paper will explore the context of reuse for one particular case study at Nether Corskie, Aberdeenshire. Here, an exploration of the carving processes and their spatial setting opens a window on contemporary engagement with the monuments and ideas of the past and place.

Picts and stones

Whilst Pictish symbols may have been used in a range of materials and contexts, they survive in the archaeological record mostly carved into stone and, more rarely, on fine metalwork or bone. There are over 200 recorded sites in Scotland with Early Medieval carved stones bearing the distinctive Pictish symbols, a range of abstract and geometric motifs. These were categorized as Class I or Class II stones in the early twentieth century with some sites hosting several examples (Allen and Anderson [1903] 1993; Fraser 2008). Class I monuments are carved by incision, only with Pictish symbols. Class II have both symbols and Christian iconography. They occur in concentrations in northern and eastern Scotland and help define the areas associated with the Picts, groups first encountered historically at the end of the third century AD, described as living and holding power to the north of the Roman territory in Britain (Figure 1; Evans 2019, 11–12). It is rare to find examples with conclusive primary contexts to help us understand dating or functions. Radiocarbon dating of one symbol incised animal bone from the Broch of Burrian, Orkney provided a date between AD 570–655 (95% probability UB-6923, Clarke and Heald 2008, 293–294). An incised bone from Pool, Sanday, Orkney returned a range of AD 410–570 (at 95% probability, SUERC-73735) (Noble, Goldberg, and Hamilton 2018, 1336). However, associated archaeological deposits from the symbol stone sites of Rhynie, from an animal bone at the base of a likely stone setting and charcoal in other settlement features, and at Dunnicaer (both Aberdeenshire), from charcoal from multiple settlement features, suggests Class I stones and symbols may begin in simple forms as early as the later third to fourth century AD (Noble, Goldberg, and Hamilton 2018, 1336–1342).

Figure 1. Locations of stones carved with Pictish symbols or possible symbols. Contains public sector information licenced under the Open Government Licence v3.0 and based on information in the Canmore database.

The meanings of Pictish symbols and their contexts on erect monumental carved monuments are still unknown. Although some motifs resemble real-world objects, such as the mirror and comb, most motifs are abstract and overall the messages being deployed are not yet understood. There is general acceptance that a certain core element represents a non-alphabetic script (Forsyth 1997; Lee, Jonathan, and Ziman 2010). The context of the symbols suggests they are a system of writing intended to relay messages of commemoration and identity (Carver 2001; Driscoll 1998; Forsyth 1997; Henderson 1967; Henderson and Henderson 2004, 167–174; Thomas 1963, 1984). Whatever their precise messages, their role in articulating and pronouncing power and identity in a landscape context seems clear, deployed to emphasize local elite relationships with sites and possibly specific territories (Carver 2001; Clarke 2007; Driscoll 1991, 1998).

Current approaches

A biographical approach to Early Medieval carved stone monuments has become more frequent (e.g. Clarke 2007; Fraser 2005; Hall et al. 2000; Jones 2005; Stocker with Everson 1990; Williams, Kirton, and Gondek 2015, 17–20). However, these have tended to focus on use and afterlife rather than on production. In this paper, a biographical approach homes in on one phase of the biography – that of the act of carving – to investigate the potential for meaning and significance in the monumental actions of carving stone, paying particular attention to the physical properties and manipulation of a stone monument. The idea that materials and substances have relevance in the creation and social and ideological lives of monuments has also been explored in various contexts (e.g. Gosden 2005; Tilley 1996, 2004; Williams, Kirton, and Gondek 2015, 13–17). One of the most critical steps in creating any Early Medieval carved stone monument was choosing and sourcing a suitable piece of stone. However, in studies on Early Medieval carved monuments the material itself often becomes redundant as discussion is drawn instead to iconography, interpretations, artistic parallels, dating and function. We can assume that those having Early Medieval carved stones made or those making them were interested and invested in their materials and chose them carefully. This could be for artistic and/or practical reasons; however, given that the social context of the production of these monuments may have articulated complex relationships between individuals, communities and various audiences within society, the choices over what to acquire and where to acquire it are unlikely to have been undertaken without carrying additional social meanings (Gondek 2006).

While available natural resources must have guided the choices of how to create monuments, the type, size, shape, texture, colour and source of the types of stone selected for carving also arguably helps us discern a series of culturally-specific decisions linked to the perception of the stone itself. We can see this perhaps most clearly when non-local stone is chosen. For example, West Kirby no. 4 (Merseyside) is a c. AD tenth − eleventh century recumbent carved stone monument whose potential origin is from a source about 43 km to the south near Ruabon, Wrexham in North Wales (Bailey 2010, 135; Bristow 2010; Williams 2016). This example and others in North Wales with non-local origins have been argued to reflect and reinforce maritime relationships as well as make statements about power and resources (Horák 2013, 38–40; Williams 2016, 88, 93–94).

If the acquisition and selection of material can be considered an ideologically or socially laden choice, then the reuse of materials for Early Medieval carved stones suggests ideological and social concerns embedded in the creation process that wove together those creating monuments, the materials they worked with and their landscapes. The reuse of sites and objects has generated a considerable volume of scholarly discussion (e.g. Bradley 1987, 1993; Driscoll 1998; Hingley 1996; Williams 1998). In Early Medieval Northern Europe, the reuse of prehistoric monuments and sites is a recognized phenomenon and may have played a role in developing territorial and political identities (Campbell and Driscoll 2020, 48–49; Driscoll 1991, 1998; Newman 1998). Reuse in the Early Medieval period has been interpreted as not just a practical or pragmatic development, but a purposeful and determined choice (Campbell and Driscoll 2020, 81–93; Driscoll 1998; Gleeson 2012; Semple and Brookes 2020, 4–5; Williams 1998). Most often this engagement with the past is articulated through location and landscape – choosing to put monuments, churches, burials or settlements in areas rich with prehistoric monuments. Perhaps the most emphatic and well-known example of a reused landscape in a Pictish region is the site of Forteviot in Perthshire, known as a ‘palace’ from Early Medieval sources and with evidence of Pictish period burials set within an elaborate prehistoric landscape including henges and a massive enclosure (Alcock and Alcock 1992, 221; Brophy and Noble 2020; Broun 1998, 80–81). At Forteviot, active interest in modifying and engaging with the prehistoric monuments is clear from a series of interventions such as the excavation of Early Medieval pits at the centre of henges (Campbell and Driscoll 2020, 81–83). The reuse of features for deposition and mortuary activity suggests aspects of this prehistoric complex remained visible in the Early Medieval period and were purposefully embedded and reconfigured in the Pictish period landscape of ritual and power, perhaps heightening a Pictish sense of ‘immemorial antiquity’ in this landscape and the connections those in power wanted to make to the deep past (Campbell and Driscoll 2020, 92).

Clarke, in a paper considering the range of functions and biographies of Class I stones, generated a list of 50 potential candidates of reused standing stones (2007, 38–39). Clarke’s list included monuments with evidence of cupmarks or with a recorded association with standing stones or stone circles. These examples are the minority, however, and most candidates were chosen because they have a height of over 1.5 m. This latter characteristic is, he admitted, quite subjective. Petts (2002) confronted a similar assumption about size and the reuse of standing stones in looking at inscribed Welsh monuments. When compared to each other, he found there was very little overlap in the sizes of the two different monument classes in Wales. Thus, Petts argued that the often-stated assumption (and all the interpretation that it implies) that early inscribed Welsh stones were reused standing stones based on size alone was probably false.

The strongest evidence of reuse in the absence of excavation is when a cupmarked stone is chosen for an Early Medieval monument and these are not known to be common (Table 1). Class I stones are the most frequent type to reuse cupmarked stones. Although there is a rich rock-art tradition in Scotland, there is little evidence to suggest that the appropriation of cupmarked stones was common practice or a ‘rule’ in the Early Medieval period. Many of the examples have cupmarks on the lower area of the stone, for example Aberlemno no. 1 (Fraser 2008, 46), which means cupmarks could exist, but be hidden in the ground. For relief monuments (Class II), preparation of the carving surface could work away the cupmarks during dressing. However, Meigle no. 1 (Fraser 2008, 128) is probably the most well-known example of this type and cupmarks are still visible in the carved area and on the base, which would have been hidden in the ground or setting. The dressing away of cupmarks might suggest their presence was hardly considered necessary or desirable, although the process of removing them may also be meaningful. The Early Medieval interpretation of cupmarks as either natural or anthropogenic features is unknown, but awareness and use of prehistoric monuments and landscapes as noted above indicates a complex social memory of the past. Despite the small numbers undoubtedly affected somewhat by loss and damage, it seems unlikely that the reuse is always accidental or coincidental.

Table 1. Summary of Early Medieval stones with cupmarks.

Stone type	Location	Location of Cupmarks	Description of Early Medieval carving
Cross slab	Kilmaha, Argyll (Lorn) (no. 1)	Possible cupmarks on carved face to right of cross.	A ring-headed cross with sunken arm-pits and open bottomed shaft. Incised.
Class I	Dunnicaer, Aberdeenshire (no. 5)	Possible cupmarks on both (carved) sides.	Incised. Double disc and Z-rod on one face. Flower, mirror and comb on the other.
Class I	Rhynie, Aberdeenshire (no. 5)	Cupmarks on uncarved side.	Incised. Deer/beast’s head, double-disc and Z-rod, mirror and comb.
Class I	Aberlemno, Angus (no. 1)	Cupmarks on uncarved side at bottom.	Incised. Snake, double disc and Z-rod, mirror and comb.
Carved stone/Class I?	Westerton, Angus	Cupmarks on the top of the stone.	Incised. Worn carving of human figure.
Class I	Ardjachie Farm, near Tain (Highland)	Cupmarks all over surface on carved side.	Incised. Wheel-like symbol and L-shaped ‘step’ type symbol.
Carved stone/Class I?	Balblair (Moniack Castle), (Highland)	Cupmarks all over surface on carved side.	Incised. Armed figure.
Class I	Dingwall Churchyard, (Highland)	Cupmarks on both faces.	Incised. Double disc and Z-rod and 2 crescent and V-rods and on other face crescent and V-rod and three circles.
Class I	Nether Corskie, Aberdeenshire	One cupmark carved face and one on side of stone.	Incised. Mirror case, mirror and comb.
Class II	Meigle (no. 1), Perthshire	Cupmarks on non cross side with more on base.	Relief. Cross side has ringed cross filled with interlace flanked by various beasts. Non cross side has salmon, beast head, Pictish beast, snake and Z-rod and mirror and comb alongside a hunting scene.
Cross slab	Tofthills, Clatt, Aberdeenshire	Numerous cupmarks on top and sides of boulder. Carving cuts cupmarks.	Incised. Circle enclosing an encircled equal-armed cross with a dot in each quadrant.

A more nuanced look into the examples may elucidate why those choices were made and address the implications of this reuse for the creation process. It is very different (although no less meaningful) to procure and/or quarry material, transport it and carve it than to transform a pre-existing standing monument. The messages of the process and the context of carving might be very different, even if the finished result looked very similar. It is that process and the choices involved in carving that must be considered in more detail.

Carving choices – exploring Nether Corskie

The site at Nether Corskie (Figure 2), near Aberdeen, consists of a pair of standing stones now flanked with clearance stones situated on a river terrace (NGR: NJ 74825 09598; Canmore ID 18537; Fraser 2008, 34; RCAHMS 2007, 69, 118–119). The western stone of the pair is carved with two cupmarks and a group of Pictish symbols (Figure 3). Cupmarks are considered to date to the Late Neolithic or Early Bronze Age and Strathdon, Nether Corskie’s geographical region, has c. 59 known examples of cupmarked stones (Gannon et al. 2007, 73–75). The presence of cupmarks on the western stone at Nether Corskie and its association with another uncarved megalith fulfils Clarke’s reuse criteria (2007). As a case study to explore, it provides a relatively secure example of Pictish period reuse. It is one of few in situ monuments, which allows exploration of its landscape setting. It also has the common challenges associated with this type of monument: there is little identified contemporary activity in the vicinity and the monument has not been the subject of direct archaeological investigations. Despite this, its geographic region has benefitted from a comprehensive archaeological survey (RCAHMS 2007) and campaigns of recent archaeological work in the north of Scotland enable investigation into context (e.g. Noble and Evans 2019, 2022; Noble et al. 2013).

Figure 2. General location of Nether Corskie. Contains public sector information licenced under the Open Government Licence v3.0.

Figure 3. General view from south of Nether Corskie (Photo by author).

The Pictish symbol stone at Nether Corskie is orientated with its broad faces facing N-S. The Pictish symbols and one large cup mark are located on the south face and another large cup mark occurs on the lower area of the western face (Figure 4; Ritchie 1915, 37–39; 1918, 87). The Pictish carvings are now very difficult to see. The incised symbols include what are commonly called the mirror, comb and the mirror case (Fraser 2008, 34). The stone thus appears to have had a long life history, having presumably been carved with cupmarks and probably erected as a standing stone with its partner to the East by or in the Early Bronze Age and chosen as a suitable place to promote monumental messaging and activities in the c. third/fourth − sixth century AD.

Figure 4. South face of Nether Corskie West showing cupmark and symbols (drawn by author from photographs and observations). Stone is 3.0 m high.

A more nuanced reading of reuse here can delve further into the materiality of and embodied engagement with the stone. Here the Early Medieval carver had two monuments in front of them when embarking on transforming the stone by carving the symbols. The stones share some characteristics. The eastern stone is over 2 metres high, which makes it a very impressive monument and similar to other reused megaliths identified by Clarke (2007). Both of these stones are granite and so neither is particularly easy to carve, requiring a technique likened to ‘smashing’ of the stone surface (Rockwell 1993, 19). Both of them have a south-facing aspect, which is relatively common amongst Aberdeenshire Class I stones (Fraser and Halliday 2007, 119). From the southern aspect, the western stone is clearly the taller of the two (Figure 3). This is also true of a view down the ridge to the stones from a northerly direction. However, this is not necessarily the impression when approaching the monument from other angles, such as from the East when they at first look roughly equal (Figure 5). The geographic setting of the stone pair shows that they sit just below the E-W contour marking the drop down to the Corskie (parts of which are also known as the Kinnernie) Burn (Figure 6). The natural route through the landscape would seem to take advantage of an E-W orientated traverse.

Figure 5. View of Nether Corskie approaching from the East (Photo by author).

Figure 6. Landscape setting of Nether Corskie including track visible in 1869 map and viewshed model suggesting views from Nether Corskie. Contains public sector information licenced under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Viewshed produced in QGIS 3.26. Includes data from Ordnance Survey 2010a and 2010b.

Figure 7. (Continued).

Late nineteenth-century mapping indicates an E-W trackway to the south of the stones once ran under the 110 m contour line. It is visible on the six-inch to the mile OS map surveyed in 1865 (Ordnance Survey 1869) as well as visible as a cropmark/soilmark in some aerial imagery. Although it is not visible in the field to the west of the stones, its alignment with another E-W track to the west suggests it continued across the fields. Although the antiquity of the trackway is unknown, the field boundaries visible in the 1st edition OS map would appear to post-date the track. This provides circumstantial evidence for a longer standing NW-SE routeway through the landscape that prioritizes a view of the southern aspect of the pair highlighting the carved side and the changing relationships of size between the stone pair as the viewer moves by them. Recent studies of Class I stones in their contexts have pointed to movement past them or through a landscape they define may be one of the key ways they were engaged with. At Tillytarmont, a group of six stones populate a peninsula of land flanked by fords enabling access across and through the symbol stone landscape (Gondek 2010). At Rhynie, the stretch of symbol stone findspots from the Craw Stane site up to the current village aligns with the natural routeway along a slight ridge now occupied by the main road (Gondek and Noble 2010) and the Craw Stane itself appears to stand at a key entrance and transitional point in the contemporary high status site (Gondek 2015).

A viewshed using OS terrain data to model the ground and based on a 1.6 m observer at Nether Corskie also emphasizes a view to and from the south and an east-west axis (Figure 6). Views from the site are relatively restricted; although, the summit of the hillfort at Barmekin of Echt would appear to be visible. This ostensibly Iron Age multivallate hillfort (it has not been excavated) may have played a significant role in developing power and settlement hierarchies given recent work on the renewed significance of hilltop enclosures early in the Pictish period (Noble 2016). A desk-based assessment of the known archaeological landscape focused on a 3.5 km square (to include Barmekin Hill) centred on Nether Corskie provides little, however, to contextualize the Pictish carving. Post-medieval features such as quarries and buildings dominate the record. Rather more sparse and dispersed records exist for prehistoric to medieval sites (Figure 7(a–c)).

Figure 7. Recorded sites around Nether Corskie (a) prehistoric (b) Iron Age and Early Medieval and (c) Medieval. Contains public sector information licenced under the Open Government Licence v. 3.0 and data from Historic Environment Scotland (n.d.).

Almost all the medieval activity is agricultural represented by rig and furrow. Early Medieval sites are restricted to Nether Corskie itself and one other cross-incised stone. In the records there are two incised crosses, each with their own complex biographies, noted as potentially Early Medieval. One, now at Dunecht House (CANMORE ID 18521), was found on the slopes of Barmekin Hill and the hillfort, built into a dyke and then moved to its current location (Ritchie 1915, 47–48). A substantial, but broken (0.9 m long, 0.5 m thick and 0.8 m high) granite slab with a pointed top, it is deeply incised with a circle (now only an arc remaining) and a small roughly equal armed cross with slightly splayed terminals (Fraser and Halliday 2007, 125, 128; Ritchie 1915, 48). It is a form and motif difficult to date with any certainty and dates from at least the seventh century to Later Medieval period are all feasible. Ritchie (1915, 48) notes the findspot coincided with a boundary recorded in the thirteenth century, relating to land at that time transferred to the Abbey at Scone. The other incised cross appears on a megalith from a demolished recumbent stone circle at Wester Echt (CANMORE ID 18534). The small Latin-style incised cross cannot be dated closely. Neither Coles (1900, 187) nor Ritchie (1919, 64) mention an incised cross in their accounts of this stone circle and this plus the appearance of graffiti on the same slab suggests this cross is unlikely to be an Early Medieval intervention and is a more modern addition.

This review of Nether Corskie suggests very little is known of the later Iron Age and Early Medieval landscape to give context to the monumental messaging of the carving and use of the symbol stone. Such a situation is common for many Early Medieval monuments. However, the topography points to an aspect of directionality (from the south and along on an E-W axis) and hints at relationships with existing sites such as Barmekin of Echt that might be woven into narratives of being in and moving through the space. Whilst this may provide a supportive arena for activities and messages associated with the carving and its creation, it does not explain how or why the carvings became part of those narratives.

Considering materiality, juxtaposition and storytelling

There may be more than the pre-existing cupmarks and landscape aspect factoring into the choice to transform the western stone. The carved stone is a pinkish granite rich in visible quartz crystals and mica flecks, whilst the eastern stone is a grey granite with few inclusions. In the sun the pink of the western stone appears much lighter than its partner and in the wet the grey of the eastern stone is even darker, whilst the quartz inclusions in the western stone can appear whiter against the pink background.

With a more imposing bulk, sparkly appearance and pre-existing rock-art, the western stone may seem the obvious choice for incising Pictish symbols. However, there are aspects of the stones that suggest that the transformation process itself was also a key factor in the choice of stone. The eastern stone’s south face is quite different to the south face of the western stone (See Figure 4). The eastern stone’s south face is a flat plane and a larger more regular surface for the potential display of incised symbols. The western stone’s south face and general surface character is gritty with lumps of quartz and little flat area (Figure 8). Such inclusions and rough surface limit the area and makes it more difficult to carve an already hard material.

Figure 8. The pitted and ‘lumpy’ carved face of Nether Corskie West (photo by author).

If the reading, display and consumption of the symbols were the key objectives in creating the monument, it would seem a carver could opt for the better and broader surface of the eastern stone to achieve a large and more visible final product. However, the difficult material of the western stone was chosen despite limiting symbol size and display. Arguably, the act and process of transformation and adding to the existing monument is the focus rather than merely the final display. Jones has advocated an approach to materiality that emphasizes ‘performative alliance’ between people and ‘things’ (Jones 2012, 12), which facilitates how we can conceptualize how agency of something like stone might work. In this case, stone can be thought of as having an agency or ability to mediate actions and performances of those engaging with it (just as people’s actions can impact the stone). Carving and reuse here thus seems linked to the medium itself with it being chosen for not only its aspect and location, but also for the way its material properties, size and pre-existing carving fed into the performative process of carving.

Although only one prehistoric monument at Nether Corskie was transformed by carving, it is quite significant to recognize that both of these standing stones were reused by the Picts. There is no way to engage with, read or interact with the western stone without reference to its uncarved partner. The stones are about three metres apart and you cannot have a relationship with one monument without the other. The stones create juxtaposition and an implicit comparison is made between the two – cupmarked and unmarked, the pink and the grey, the taller and the shorter, the lumpy and the flat and in the Early Medieval period an extra layer of juxtaposition is added. A greater appreciation of the transformative process of the western stone is achieved by the inevitable comparison made by the physical presence of its eastern partner.

There is a possibility that at least some Early Medieval stones were painted although there is no evidence for this on Class I stones as of yet. In Scotland, traces of red pigment have been found on fragments of later stones at Portmahomack (Carver, Garner-Lahire, and Spall 2016, 164, 174) and there is evidence for rich colours generally in the Early Medieval world (Noble and Evans 2022, 41). The eastern stone could have had painted imagery rather than carved; although, this would wear quickly outside and perhaps require periodic repainting. The act of painting and repainting of this pair could offer another opportunity for the community to reflect on and remember the carving/transformation story. The carved symbols on the western stone would not disappear or alter in shape, even if changing in colour. Any possible painted symbols on the eastern stone could change and were more ephemeral, not permanently drawn out of and into the stone like its partner. However, even without painting the reuse of the eastern stone in embodied engagements with the Class I stone is part of the Pictish period (and our later) experience.

The opportunity to juxtapose and enhance comparison between the two stones appears to have impacted on the choice to reuse monuments here at Nether Corskie. The juxtaposition gives the potential to amplify monumental identity by drawing attention to the transformation by carving. Whilst our dataset of stones in their original locations is limited because of survival, there are other examples in Aberdeenshire that have relatively close spatial relationships between carved/uncarved standing stones. At Ardlair (CANMORE ID 17636; NJ 5547 2784), a monument interpreted as a reused standing stone and carved with Pictish symbols stands about 25 metres away from an uncarved standing stone and between it and a recumbent stone circle about 260 m away (Gannon et al. 2007, 118). Gannon et al. drew attention to other associations of symbol stones and prehistoric standing stones or stone circles at Brandsbutt and possibly Kinellar and Kintore in the Donside region in addition to Nether Corskie (2007, 117–118). At Rhynie, Aberdeenshire, a spread of eight symbol stones (one of which has cupmarks) stretching from the Craw Stane and its high status Pictish settlement up to the current village may have been complemented by two uncarved standing stones although their exact location is unknown (Gannon et al. 2007, 118–122; Gondek and Noble 2010).

Reuse and commemorative strategies

Prehistoric megalithic monuments may in some cases provide opportunities in the Pictish period and the choice to carve and reuse some of them reflects a concern with presence and permanence in the landscape and agency of the prehistoric monuments themselves on Pictish society. Selective transformation of prehistoric standing stones by the carving process redefined monumental engagement at those locations. Instances where a carved monument is juxtaposed with an uncarved monument may also be emphasizing this selective transformation by juxtaposing the ‘present’ from the past and referencing the past in a particular way. One context often associated with the carving of Pictish symbols onto upright stone monuments (the Class I stones especially) is the assertion of identity in the face of changing political and ideological worlds in the fifth − seventh centuries, particularly conversion to Christianity and the development of larger political territoriality (Carver 2001; Clarke 2007; Driscoll 1991). Driscoll has argued for the mortuary associations of Class I monuments and how they develop links between the deceased and the ancestral landscape in a time of emerging kingdoms (Driscoll 1991, 179–183). Clarke, preferring a non-mortuary context, has pointed to the ‘megalithic’ characteristics of Class I stones as a purposeful invocation of standing stones that, as an image of the past, promoted ‘a sense of one-ness with the natural world and the very slow transformation of the landscape’ (Clarke 2007, 34). His view reflects an interpretation of the monuments as challenging new ideas such as Christianity. He sees Class I stones as a reassertion of the existing social order and social memories particularly in comparison to the shaped stones, which were part of the new ideological order (Clarke 2007, 31–35). Carver outlined how the carving of the symbols into stone was a type of ‘prehistoric practice’ carrying a ‘prehistoric meaning’ that the Picts understood because of the long-standing traditions of monumental stone use in the region, but still considered the carving a type of ‘rebranding’ when on a prehistoric megalith itself (Carver 2008, 94–96).

Caution should be taken in advocating for a homogenous explanation for the appearance of reused monuments or their functions (Gondek 2015). An assertion of identity and purposeful links to the past or ancestral landscapes is part of the phenomenon of this practice of carving symbols into stone monuments in the Early Medieval period, although they likely have multiple meanings and functions sensitive to local requirements. Reuse does invoke a link to a past embedded within the landscape, but this is not necessarily a conservative or reactionary act and the past itself was a socially constructed and mutable concept. The act of transformation through carving symbols into one of the monuments at Nether Corskie created a situation where an ancestral landscape was changed via a dramatic percussive process over a relatively short period of time, which changed the way people understood and perhaps physically engaged with the monuments and their location. Movement around and approach may have become more focused with an increased directionality to the stones to enhance the impact of the carved/uncarved comparison. New stories and legends would be needed to explain the appearance of carvings and the challenges involved, the relationship between the cupmarks and new carvings, and the relationship between the carved and uncarved stones. A new identity or message emerges building on social memory and sometimes ancestry, but redefining, reimagining or even erasing it.

Ancestry and genealogy were powerful ideological concepts in the Early Medieval period. Descent, power and identity were inextricably linked. Naismith (2021, 98) has pointed to how Early Medieval concerns and expressions of genealogy were often key for elements of legal and social status. A concern with genealogy and legitimacy is evident in, for example, early Irish laws of succession where eligibility for power was in part determined by ancestry (Ó Cróinín 1995, 65–66). Elite ancestral memories could provide legitimacy and ‘histories’, as well as the power to forget or rewrite the past via inclusion or exclusion in written, recited or performative genealogies (Williams 2006, 12–13). Genealogies both look backward and project forward. Williams (2011) has pointed to how the rare surviving instance in stone (ninth century) of the carved Pillar of Eliseg’s (Wales) genealogical inscription manipulates ancestry, time, mythologies and its landscape context to function at many different levels of commemoration. Whilst Nether Corskie is probably much earlier in date (c. AD fourth − seventh century) than either manuscript examples of genealogy or the Pillar of Eliseg, the carving of symbols (likely a name) may have encouraged its audience to encounter the stones as a type of addition to the past represented by the stone pair and the cupmarks. It hints that the interest in the deep past seen at Forteviot where active intervention into prehistoric monuments occurred, is being expressed from early on in the Pictish period in a variety of nuanced actions and engagements. Culturally and spatially specific engagements with the past may have impacted some decisions about how, why and where to make new monumental statements in stone.

Conclusion

This discussion has drawn out broader themes in the study of carved stones beyond the reuse of prehistoric monuments. Moving beyond a representative approach to monuments and their landscape settings, the relationship between process, materiality and monumentality can be discerned in the selection of where and how to adopt and adapt places. The process of carving a prehistoric monolith was an event that both evoked the past and redefined it through performance in the present. This concern with past, present, process and materiality challenges blanket ideological interpretations of monument reuse and suggests more nuanced and meaningful engagements with materiality in the Early Medieval period.

Further investigation into regional and progressively more local characteristics of raising stone monuments needs to be done. However, this paper has shown how we can move beyond merely quantifying the frequencies or locations of reused prehistoric stones. By focusing upon the contextual discussion of one particular monument, the significance of the selective and intentional nature of re-using prehistoric stones in relation to materiality, form and location can be explored and developed. Ancestry is argued to be a structuring ideological principle for elite groups, whose rich understanding and relationships with the past and materials in the world around them created monuments that could act as mnemonic manipulators of the deep geneaologies from which they often drew power and legitimacy.

Acknowledgments

This paper originated from a presentation given at the Bristol Rock-Art Group conference many years ago now in 2008 and ideas in it have resurfaced at other events and in teaching over the years. The author would like to thank George Nash for the invitation to speak at the original conference. Howard Williams and Gordon Noble graciously offered valuable comments on drafts at various points in its writing and the University of Chester has provided support for research and field visits. Many thanks are also due to the anonymous reviewers and editor for their constructive support and patience. Any errors remain the sole responsibility of the author.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).