Follow the same directions as if you’re looking for the Doo’cot Woods carving; but, in the field that you have to cross before entering the trees, about 50 yards down from the top of the field, a geological ridge of stone runs along into the trees themselves. The carving is along this ridge in the field. Walk along and you’ll find it!
Archaeology & History
Not described in earlier surveys, this is one of two cup-marked stones close to each other along this long ridge of stone reaching across the field. The carving has just two distinct cups, as illustrated, between 2-3 inches across and half-an-inch deep. As with the adjacent carving, no other features seem to visible.
Close-up of cup-marks
We must, however, be cautious with this and other ‘cup-markings’ nearby, as a lot of the stone in this area is conglomerate with nodules of differing forms of rock (visible on nearby stones) falling away to leave cup-like impressions where the softer stone has eroded. Some of the cup-markings listed in John Sherriff’s (1995) survey of this region seem to be purely geological in nature and not man-made.
Follow the same directions as if you’re looking for the Doo’cot Woods carving; but, in the field that you have to cross before entering the trees, about 50 yards down from the top of the field, a geological ridge of stone runs along into the trees themselves. The carving is along this ridge in the field. Walk along and you’ll find it! (the grid-reference for this carving is slightly off-centre and needs correcting)
Archaeology & History
Not described in earlier surveys, this is one of two cup-marked stones close to each other along this long ridge of stone reaching across the field. The carving has three distinct cups, as shown in the photos, and another two more faded ones. No other features seemed visible when we were here. We must, however, be careful with this and other ‘cup-markings’ in the area, as a lot of the stone is conglomerate and nodules of differing forms of rock (visible on nearby stones) fall away, leaving cup-like impressions where the softer stone erodes. Some of the cup-markings listed in John Sherriff’s (1995) survey of this region seem to be purely geological in nature and not man-made. Several more visits are needed here so we can ascertain the valid carvings from the geological features.
A tricky venture, best approached along the B9113 eastwards out of Forfar, towards Rescobie Loch. Just a coupla hundred yards past the lochside, go up the track that leads you to the farmhouse called West Mains of Turin, below Turin Hill on the left-hand side of the road (north). Go up through and past the farm, up the track until you hit the gate that takes where the old quarries appear. Looking right, a copse of woods appears. Go into it and about two-thirds way up, a slight rise marks a long ridge of rock cutting across the woodland. The carving is near the very eastern end of this ridge at the far side of the trees. Good luck!
Archaeology & History
Not included in John Sherriff’s (1995) survey of Angus petroglyphs, this “carving”, like many in his survey, may be deemed slightly debatable and require the attention of qualified geologists to ascertain the veracity, or otherwise, of a number of supposed cup-marked stones that he describes. This one, found in the woodland beneath the undergrowth of years of pine needles and such things (hence the poor quality photos), has between 9 and 11 cup-markings etched on the southern sides of a large earthfast stone found in the woodland. There may be more cups on this rock, beneath the compressed vegetation, but we didn’t spend too much time here to find out (bad boys that we are!).
The easiest way to find this is by going along the B9113 road that runs from the east side of Forfar, out to Montreathmont Forest. Along this road, pass the Rescobie Loch and keep going for another mile or so, until you hit the small crossroads. Go left here as if you’re going to Aberlemno. Barely 100 yards up, opposite the newly-built Westerton house, the standing stone is on the rise in the field.
Archaeology & History
A truly fascinating heathen stone in a parish full of Pictish and early christian remains, with the faint remains of an intriguing carving that can still, thankfully, be discerned on the southwestern face of the upright….amongst other things…
Marked as a singular stone after the Ordnance Survey lads visited here in 1901, early mentions of the site are very scant indeed. In Sir James Simpson’s (1866; 1867) early masterpiece on prehistoric rock art, in which he named the place as the “Circle of Turin,” he related how his friend and associate Dr Wyse told him how this stone “once formed one of a fine circle of boulder stones at Nether Turin,” but said little more. (Simpson was the vice president of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, a professor of medicine, as well as being one of Queen Victoria’s chief physicians.) The “Dr Wyse” in question was very probably Thomas Alexander Wise, M.D., who wrote the little-known but informative and extravagent analysis of prehistoric sites and their folklore in Scotland called A History of Paganism in Caledonia (1884). Therein he told us:
“At Turin, in Forfarshire, there is a large boulder which had formed one of the stones in a circle. On the flat top are several cups arranged irregularly, and without any enclosing circles. This boulder stone is on the NW face of the circle. The other side was towards the SE, facing the rising sun.”
As a result of these early references the site is listed and documented, correctly, as a “stone circle” in Aubrey Burl’s (2000) magnum opus. We do not have the information to hand about who was responsible for the circle’s desctruction—but it was likely done by the usual self-righteous industrialists or christians. It is a puzzle therefore, why Barclay & Halliday (1982) sought to reject an earlier “megalithic ring” status as mentioned by Sir James and Dr Wise, with little more than a flippant dismissal in their short note on the Westerton stone. Unless those two writers can offer vital evidence that can prove that the Westerton standing stone was not part of a megalithic ring, we can of course safely dismiss their unsubstantiated claim.
Despite this however, they do give us an intriguing description of a curious carving, faintly visible, of an upright male figure etched onto the west side of this standing stone. The carving has unfortunately been damaged—probably by intruding christians or puritans of some sad form. You’ll see why I’m blaming them in a minute! In their short account of the carving, Barclay & Halliday (1982) state:
“Much of the original surface of the SW face of the stone has scaled off, but, on the surviving portion, there is a part of a human figure…apparently naked, outlined by grooves, measuring between 5mm and 15mm in breadth and up to 7mm in depth. Of the head, only the lower part of the jaw and neck can be identified, and a second groove at the back of the neck probably represents hair or some form of head-covering. The left arm passes across the body into the lap and the arch of the back is shown by a groove which detaches itself from the upper part of the arm. The left leg is bent at the knee and is lost below mid-calf; from mid-calf to jaw is a distance of some 0.85m”
In interpreting this carving the authors make a shallow, if not poor attempt to describe what he may be doing, saying:
“The figure is viewed from its left side and is turned slightly towards the observer. The position of the left arm and leg may be compared with those of a fighting figure depicted on the Shandwick Stone, Easter Ross…but they may also reflect a riding posture; no trace of a mount, however, has survived.”
Well – that is intriguing. But we have to recognise that our authors work for the Royal Commission, which may have effected their eyes and certainly their minds—as everyone else sees something not drawn out of Rorscharch’s famous psychology test! When I put the drawing you can see here (left) onto various internet archaeology group pages (including the Prehistoric Society, etc) the response was virtually unanimous, with some comical variants on what the carved man is doing — i.e., masturbating, or at least committing some sort of sexual act, possibly with another creature where the rock has been hacked away by the vandals. But a sexual act it is! Although such designs are rare in Britain, they are found in prehistoric rock art and later architectural carvings in most cultures on Earth. The nearest and most extravagant examples of such sexual acts can be found in the Scandinavian countries, where fertility images are profuse, often in tandem with typical prehistoric cup-and-ring designs. (see Coles 2005; Gelling & Davidson 1969, etc)
…And, on the very top of the stone, running along its near-horizontal surface, a line of six cup-markings are clearly visible. Intrusions of natural geophysical scars are also there, but the cup-marks are quite distinct from Nature’s wear, all on the west side of the natural cut running along the top. These cup-marks were first mentioned in Simpson’s (1866; 1867) early tome, where he told how his “esteemed friend Dr Wyse discovered ‘several carefully excavated cavities upon its top in groups, without circles.'” Whether these neolithic to Bronze Age elements had any association with the later Pictish-style wanking fella (fertility?) is impossible to know, sadly…
Barclay, G.J. & Halliday, S.P., “A Rock Carving from Westerton, Angus District,” in Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries, Scotland, volume 112, 1982.
Burl, Aubrey, The Stone Circles of Britain, Ireland and Brittany, Yale University Press 2000.
Coles, John, Shadows of a Northern Past, Oxbow: Oxford 2005.
Gelling, Peter & Davidson, Hilda Ellis, The Chariot of the Sun and other Rites and Symbols of the Northern Bronze Age, J.M. Dent: London 1969.
Sherriff, John R., “Prehistoric Rock Carvings in Angus,” in Tayside & Fife Archaeological Journal, volume 1, 1995.