Ritual Stones in Scottish Universities

The tradition of "black stone examination" in Scottish universities is a fascinating aspect of academic history, with roots dating back to at least the 16th century. Here's a summary of the references and information about this practice (produced by Perplexity AI agent):

## Origins and Prevalence

The black stone examination was once a common practice among the five ancient Scottish universities. The earliest known reference to this tradition dates back to 1531 at the University of St Andrews[1]. By 1647, the University Commissioners referred to the examination on the "Black-staine" as a practice common to all Scottish universities[1].

## Specific University References

### University of St Andrews

- An "examen quod appellant nigri lapidis" (examination which they call of the black stone) is mentioned in a 1580 regulation[1].

- The reputed black stone of St Andrews University, now in Parliament Hall, appears to be the base of a column[1].

### University of Glasgow

- In 1659, a regulation mentioned that library fees should be paid before a graduand could proceed to "laureation" (graduation) on the black stone[1].

- The University of Glasgow's Blackstone Chair, created in the mid-1770s, incorporated this tradition into a more elaborate piece of furniture[1].

### University of Edinburgh and Marischal College, Aberdeen

- Both institutions once held black stone examinations, although no trace of the stones used survives[1].

### King's College, Aberdeen

- According to one account, the black marble tombstone of the founder, Bishop Elphinstone, was used at graduation[1].

## Nature of the Examination

The black stone examination was typically an oral examination conducted in Latin or Greek. At the University of Glasgow, for example:

- Students sat on the black stone (later, in the Blackstone Chair) while professors tested their knowledge of chosen books[1].

- An hourglass was used to time the examination[1].

- The examination was part of the process for "promotion" to the next stage in the degree structure[1].

## Evolution and Discontinuation

The practice of black stone examination evolved over time:

- At Glasgow, the tradition was incorporated into the elaborate Blackstone Chair in the 1770s[1].

- The Universities Act of 1858 led to the introduction of written examinations, largely ending the practice of oral examinations on the black stone[1].

## Significance

The black stone examination was more than just an academic test; it was a ritual element that added solemnity and tradition to the examination process. Its widespread use across Scottish universities highlights a shared academic culture and tradition unique to Scotland's educational institutions.

Citations:

[1] https://regionalfurnituresociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/the-blackstone-chair-stephen-jackson.pdf

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_stane

[3] https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/blackstone-chair-glasgow-scotland

[4] https://museumoftheuniversityofstandrews.wordpress.com/2018/05/09/st-andrews-and-the-blackstone/

[5] https://www.bbc.co.uk/ahistoryoftheworld/objects/1zz8mu7wSai1ARME0WuMSw

[6] https://collections.st-andrews.ac.uk/collection/furniture/1004089

[7] https://collections.st-andrews.ac.uk/item/black-stone/1000995

[8] https://citydays.com/places/blackstone-chair/

[9] https://electricscotland.com/education/edu18.htm

[10] https://special-collections.wp.st-andrews.ac.uk/2017/12/11/the-exam-season-is-upon-us/

[11] https://www.theglasgowstory.com/image/?inum=TGSD00557

Darwin's Stonehenge Notes

 I have written before about Darwin's Stone at Stonehenge - https://www.sarsen.org/2014/05/darwin-stonehenge-and-worms.html   where he is investigating the actions of worms in burying stones.

His manuscript notes are online:

The stone seems to be Stone 45 

A further manuscript where he measures the build up of mould in the ditch is also online :  

The Location of the Altar Stone Engravings

The location of the enigmatic engravings on the Altar Stone shown in Richard Atkinson's 1958 photos that I found in the Historic England archives is a bit of a mystery. Without doubt they are on the Altar Stone at Stonehenge but the caption "Surface Of Altar Stone From North East" doesn't seem right. We have his photo of the North East side of the Altar Stone (below, last photo) exposed after excavation and it doesn't match. I thought it must be the eastern end of the stone but again there are problems. The photo shows the surface of the stone and a section of soil  butting up to it, indicated in pink in the diagram below. His excavation photo shows he cleared the end so there is not section of soil left.

However examining one of the Historic England photos of the engravings reveals in the top right corner a groove in the top surface of the stone, above where the soil section is. Circled in pink in the marked up diagram version (Due to copyright I can't reproduce the photo).

My own photo of the middle section of the Altar Stone surface is moss free and shows an identical groove on the south side as it goes under Stone 55b. Other photos from other sources also show this groove.

Atkinson's excavation photo shows he dug on the south side of the middle section of the Altar Stone and left a baulk of soil under 55b. A photo taken of that excavation "looking" north east would match the features indicated. The eroded top edge of the Altar Stone appears very similar to that in the photo as well.

I am convinced the location of the engravings is on the south side of the middle section of the Altar Stone.

UPDATE - Aha! I have found more photos where the caption seems to mix up North and South, if 156 is on the left and 55B on the right you are facing North not looking from it. 

"Centre Of Altar Stone From N.W. Stone 156 On Left Stone 55B On Right".https://historicengland.org.uk/images-books/photos/item/P50100 

"S.E. End Of Altar Stone From N.W. Stone 156 On Left Stone 55B On Right." https://historicengland.org.uk/images-books/photos/item/P50099 

I'm booking a visit to the archive to check them and others out.

Diagram showing the features in the photo of the Altar Stone above

(Photo itself is copyright)

Altar Stone middle section surface looking from North East 

My photo - free to copy, click to enlarge.

Rotated cropped copy with the groove highlighted to match the orientation of Atkinson's photo:

 

Newall's Boulder - A short note on a defective paper

I note the publishers of the deeply flawed paper -  A bluestone boulder at Stonehenge: implications for the glacial transport theory  - have added a warning to it:

"Please read the editorial note first before accessing the article."

"As a platform for scientific discourse, EGQSJ welcomes and expects critical commentary on this article. This page will be updated accordingly."

The comprehensive paper that deals with the egregious errors in the paper is on track to arrive but in the meantime an example of a sin of omission by the author is probably all you need to know.

The bluestone boulder excavated at Stonehenge the paper is about.

A photo of a near identical boulder at Craig Rhos-y-felin (Rhosyfelin), previously published by the author of the paper and not referenced in the paper. (Click photos to embiggen)

The geochemistry of the Stonehenge "Newall" Boulder has been traced back to Craig Rhos-y-felin and other near identical boulders there have been measured and are of similar size to the excavated one. The photographed one and the excavated one would be hard to tell apart, as a photomontage shows:

The paper is based on the idea that the boulder found at Stonehenge is so different from those at “Craig Rhos-y-felin” that only glacial transport can explain the transformation. The logical explanation that humans moved the rock is therefore discounted by him. By not referencing the relevant evidence of his own photographs he eschews that there is no such transformation but at the cost of his integrity. 

The Battle of the Bluestones – Mythology versus Science

 

 Click to enlarge

It is worth recording the theory of how the bluestones were brought to Stonehenge by ice before it goes the way of so many other historic Stonehenge theories; the diluvian destruction, the Mycenaeans, the giants etc.

Simply, when Wales was as cold as charity and covered in ice, down to the white line, Preselian boulders were picked up in the ice and carried along the route of the arrow, see above.

The hills to the south of the Bristol Channel, circled, were periglacial tundra with all the associated landforms - https://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glacial-geology/glacial-landforms/periglaciation/antarctic-periglacial-environments/  has examples.

It was a bit more complicated around Bristol with icy wastes pushing up the channel and flowing down from the surrounding higher ground, but that doesn't concern the theory.

The only way through the hills that serve in the office of a wall to protect this blessed plot is across the Somerset levels, which barely rise above sea level.

However even they eventually give way to higher ground.

And unfortunately for the theory there are no traces of the boulder bearing behemoth ever having passed across the green and pleasant.  No glacial erratics, no moraines, nothing. No evidence at all.

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence". - Christopher Hitchens. "God Is Not Great: How religion poisons everything" 2009

Where did the missing stones go?

Sarsen Quern Fragment

Mike Pitts asks: "What happened to these missing stones? Who took them down and where did they go?

As I wrote some time ago: 

One of the mysteries of Stonehenge is what happened to the missing Sarsens. Assuming it was complete somewhere in the order of 300 tonnes of sarsen stone is missing. Apart from the edge damage caused by visitors it seems that complete stones were removed and that they were chosen from within the monument for some reason. Why take that lintel but leave the easier to remove fallen stone here? The stones don't seem to be present in any local buildings and it seems to odd to suggest they were broken up for roadstone when the easier pickings of the bluestones don't seem to have been so.

Julian Richards has suggested that one reason that sarsens were removed was for the stone to be used for producing grinding querns. There is very little stone in neighborhood suitable for stones to grind grain with and some sarsen stone types are very suitable, other less so. So a source of excellent source material may have been irresistible in the later Bronze Age, and a quern manufactory set up.

"East of (north Fargo) plantation the field system corresponds with an area of later Bronze Age activity identified by extensive surface collection in the winter of 1980-81 and subsequently sampled more intensively (Richards, J 1990 The Stonehenge Environs Project. HBMC: London ). The surface scatter consisted of pottery and large quantities of burnt flint and burnt and broken sarsen, including quern fragments, and was interpreted as a small nucleated area of later Bronze Age settlement, lying within the area of regular field"

Research Department Report Series 82-2011 

STONEHENGE WORLD HERITAGE SITE LANDSCAPE PROJECT LEVEL 1 FIELD INVESTIGATIONS ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REPORT 

Sharon Bishop

And from: The Stonehenge Environs Project, Richards, J., English Heritage (1990), ISBN: 9781848022096

I have also written about a possible fate for some of the bluestones, to become Roman Pessoi

https://www.sarsen.org/2021/02/bluestone-arse-wipe.html  

But maybe some of the circle never progressed from wood to stone.

Stonehenge's Origins: A Unifying Monument for Ancient Britons - PR

Recent archaeological research, building on two prior studies, points to a fascinating possibility about Stonehenge: it may have been reconstructed in England between 2620 and 2480 BC to serve as a unifying symbol for ancient Britons amidst the arrival of newcomers from Europe. This new study, detailed in Archaeology International, sheds light not only on the monument's purpose but also on the monumental task of transporting a 6 tonne stone over a staggering distance of 435 miles (700 kilometers) from its original location.

  
The research draws intriguing parallels between Stonehenge, situated on England's Salisbury Plain in Wiltshire, and similar stone circles in Scotland. These similarities suggest a greater degree of connectivity between these ancient societies than previously imagined, painting a picture of a well-networked Neolithic world where cultural exchanges could have influenced monumental architecture across Britain. This connectivity could imply shared rituals, beliefs, or social structures that transcended geographical boundaries, offering a new lens through which we view the interactions among ancient peoples.

 
“These new insights have significantly expanded our understanding as to what the original purpose of Stonehenge might have been. It shows that this site on Salisbury Plain was important to the people not just living nearby, but across Britain, so much so that they brought massive monoliths across sometimes hundreds of miles to this one location.” - Mike Parker Pearson

Paper in Archaeology International in 2025 - https://journals.uclpress.co.uk/ai/issue/602/info/

I have a review

 "I have a Geography degree which included studies of glaciation processes etc, and since having been a Chartered Librarian specialising in information, I place prime importance on accuracy and objectivity.

As I expected, you are predictably sadly not engaging with the subject sensibly, unlike Dr Brian John. Your so - called publication is simply a parrot-like mimic of Mike Pitts' dismissive remark in his recent book. Sand, head in, and ostrich are the keywords that apply. You take a purely binary stance and insist on adopting an adversarial approach instead of showing consideration. Putin, aggression and imperialism over Ukraine are not dissimilar.

 Some people insist they know-it-all whilst immediately saying there is nothing-to-know.....But do you think they are serious in their pursuit of all the possible scientific evidence? Ostrich, sand, head in, "I see no ship", looking with my blind eye' all spring to mind. Also, flat-earthers."

How charmingly Pooteresque, though being compared to Putin might be considered du trop for this festive time in polite company. Personally I would echo the Dickensian wish: "A Merry Christmas to us all; God bless us, everyone!”

The Myth of Bristol Channel High-level Glacial Erratics

I came across an intriguing claim about glacial erratics on the shores of the Bristol Channel that underpins a Stonehenge creation theory.

"Further, of the scores of known glacial erratics on the shores of the Bristol Channel, many are found at altitudes in excess of 100m, indicating that during at least one glacial episode the ice of the Irish Sea Ice Stream was thick enough and dynamic enough to press inland across the coasts of Devon and Cornwall. It is therefore probable that glacier ice also reached Salisbury Plain, and that the bluestone boulders and smaller fragments at Stonehenge — from more than 30 different sources — were glacially transported. " 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/381775577_Quaternary_Newsletter_Article_AN_IGNEOUS_ERRATIC_AT_LIMESLADE_GOWER_AND_THE_GLACIATION_OF_THE_BRISTOL_CHANNEL

The claim is that many glacial erratics are found at altitudes in excess of 100m, and that this fact would indicate all sorts of stuff. And that this is the "abstract" of a paper that has presumably had some sort of review.

So let's look at the paper: An Igneous Erratic at Limeslade, Gower & the Glaciation of the Bristol Channel linked from https://www.qra.org.uk/quaternary-newsletter/qn-162-archive/

What does it say?

Not what the author's abstract says.

The references are Harmer's Erratic Map of 1928: Here's the extract, click to embiggen.

No, I can't see any.

Maybe Madgett & Ingliss 1987 references some "high level erratics", after all the convention is that if it is within quote marks it should be a quote:

https://devonassoc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/A-Reappraisal-Madgett-TDA-1987.pdf

Nope.

For the Ilfracombe-Berrynarbour reference see below.

Paul Berry - https://devongeography.wordpress.com/2021/10/27/coastal-walk-at-baggy-point-north-devon/ has some good photos of the Baggy Point erratics - 46, 60 and 80m in altitude. So they aren't part of the many at over 100m. More about them later.

The author of the claim has elsewhere provided a useful table of the erratics he knows of:

Here are some of the recorded altitudes of erratics on or near the coasts of Cornwall, Devon and Somerset:

Lundy 138m

Shebbear 150m

Westonzoyland 10m

Baggy Point 80m, 60m and 45m

Ilfracombe 150m - 175m

Kenn 7m

Court Hill 68m (ice surface was above 85m)

Nightingale Valley / Portishead Down 85m

Let's look at them in turn:

Lundy - the most comprehensive report is https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/380559/1/LFS_Journal_2014-Rolfe_et_al.pdf  They are local rocks that have been pushed around on the island, not relevant.

"The lack of a glacial imprint on these boulders, minimal transport distance and lack of periglacial modification undermines the glacial transport model proposed by Rolfe et al. (2012); an origin as residual boulders derived from two-stage weathering is far more likely." https://insight.cumbria.ac.uk/id/eprint/4557/1/Carr_LandscapeEvolution.pdf 

Shebbear - A sarsen stone not a glacial erratic https://sarsen.substack.com/p/the-shebbear-erratic-sarsenhtml

Westonzoyland - 10m - basically within tidal range.

Baggy Point 80m, 60m and 45m - 

Yes - under 100m. But the author has repeatedly written about them:

https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2023/10/pink-tuff-erratics-from-baggy-point.html

https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2023/10/glacial-traces-near-baggy-point-devon.html

THE RAMSON CLIFF ERRATIC (THE "HIGH ERRATIC" ON BAGGY POINT)  

In 1969 this boulder was in the middle of a pasture field, right on the crest-line of Baggy Point above Ramson Cliff, though in a low-point of that crest-line. It was standing upright, part-buried in the thin soil.... in the early 1970s this same farmer decided to plough those fields, initially simply resulting in the boulder being dislodged and lying prone; then shortly afterwards he dragged it to the edge of the field, where it has been ever since, adjacent to the Coast Path,...Some have suggested that this erratic (in its 1969 context) represents a prehistoric Standing Stone - quite feasible, and there is another standing stone nearer to Putsborough, though that one is a local slabby sandstone. Because of the occurrence of erratic boulders on the southern shore of Baggy, at Saunton Down End, and under Saunton cliffs, it was then suggested that the boulder might have been dragged up from such a location. Against this is the shape of the boulder - which is rather angular and rough-surfaced - not at all like those on the foreshore,

https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2015/01/the-erratics-at-baggy-point-croyde-and.html

What? It is a standing stone that the farmer has moved to the edge of his field. And the others are so small they wouldn't even fill a wheelbarrow, and seem to be moved about at will. The lack of reliable context makes them irrelevant.

Ilfracombe:  again we can go back to the blogger behind the claim:

https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2022/03/ilfracombe-erratic-spread.html

The sole reference is to page 202 of https://data.jncc.gov.uk/data/965f9190-c00b-4a6b-aa9f-8e3855492404/gcr-v14-quaternary-of-south-west-england-c7.pdf 

"there is some evidence provided by erratic material that ice extended to about 150-175 m OD on the western plateau behind Ilfracombe and Berrynarbour."

Pretty thin gruel to base a theory on as I can find no other supporting sources. Certainly there are no erratic boulders recorded.

Kenn - 7m - hardly high-level. The best reference is: https://geoguide.scottishgeologytrust.org/p/gcr/gcr14/gcr14_kennchurch.pdf and put in context in: https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/documents/3923/92p271.pdf  as is,

Court Hill 68m - https://geoguide.scottishgeologytrust.org/p/gcr/gcr14/gcr14_courthill  No relevant erratic boulders

Nightingale Valley / Portishead Down 85m -https://geoguide.scottishgeologytrust.org/p/gcr/gcr14/gcr14_nightingalevalley  No relevant erratic boulders.

So that list was a wash.

What about the erratics found in the Fremington Clay Pits near Barnstable?

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/geological-magazine/article/erratic-boulders-within-the-fremington-clay-of-north-devon/B34A6E72966498B37FB95BE11B3CB6B5 

Claypits Cover lies between 20 - 30 m -  the erratics were found in the clay some metres below ground.

Oh dear, not a single reliable reference to a "high-level erratics", let alone many of them. The still magisterial JNCC report says it best: And is worth a read for details of the evidence across the region.

Click to embiggen - as with all the images.

https://data.jncc.gov.uk/data/965f9190-c00b-4a6b-aa9f-8e3855492404/gcr-v14-quaternary-of-south-west-england-c6.pdf

Dr John - Ice Age - Enjoy

The search for a second Altar Stone - Andrew Collins

 Collins, Andrew. (2024). The Stonehenge Altar Stone: Its Origins, Composition, and Function, And the Search for Its Lost Companion. 

The most enigmatic "foreign" stone at Stonehenge is its Altar Stone. Long thought to have been sourced from the Old Red Sandstone beds of South Wales, new studies have focused on its origin in the Orcadian Basin of northeastern Scotland, either in the Caithness region or in the Orkney Isles. Despite one paper (Bevins et al, 2024) providing compelling evidence that the Altar Stone does not exactly match the composition of Old Red Sandstone beds on the Orkney Mainland, those responsible for transporting the stone to Stonehenge were almost certainly its original builders, the Grooved Ware culture, who first emerged on Orkney during the Late Neolithic. We look at everything known about the Altar Stone and how its presence at Stonehenge might relate to its construction. We also go in search of its lost companion, and examine where both these huge monoliths might have stood within the monument, and how all this might relate to the monument's underlying geometry.

Woodhenge Dating

"Woodhenge now appears to be a multi-phase monument with at least two main phases – an “astronomical” monument comprising concentric oval timber rings, later enclosed by a bank and ditch... (Demonstrating) possible contemporaneity of the Stonehenge phase 3 stone settings and Woodhenge timber settings. ..The functioning astronomical monument appeared to be of relatively short duration, and presumably was no longer used when the timber rings decayed and the bank and ditch was erected (the latter might have prevented solstitial viewing too). The timber monument was ‘wrapped’ when the enclosing bank and ditch were constructed after a interval of 75–440 years (95% probability) and probably 145–280 years (68% probability)"

"Radiocarbon dating and chronological modelling of samples from Woodhenge suggest that the timber monument was constructed in 2635–2575 cal BC (95% probability), probably in 2635–2610 cal BC (54% probability) or 2595–2580 cal BC (14% probability) and enclosed by the ditch and bank in 2555–2505 cal BC (2% probability) or 2495–2180 cal BC (93% probability), probably in 2465–2345 cal BC (68% probability)."

Woodhenge, Durrington, Wiltshire - Radiocarbon Dating and Chronological Modelling 

Peter Marshall, Amanda Chadburn, Irka Hajdas, Michael Dee and Joshua Pollard 

Historic England Research Report Series 94/2024 

https://historicengland.org.uk/research/results/reports/9070/WoodhengeDurringtonWiltshire_RadiocarbonDatingandChronologicalModelling

Dolmen Capstone Assumptions

 

DZSWS:1998.1008 Drawing of Carreg Samson  Wiltshire Museum

The capstones of the great Preseli Dolmens, Carreg Samson, Carreg Coitan, and Pentre Ifan, and slightly further afield Tinkinswood, are an intriguing mystery.

They are all large, in Tinkinswood's case about 40 tonnes, monoliths that are described as erratics. In Carreg Samson's case the igneous rock is obviously different to some of the supports which are a conglomerate.

There is a reasonable assumption that these different stones all ended up on site by natural processes, and pits under the dolmens might be where they were extracted from. But these are just assumptions, there is no evidence. And as the builders obviously could move and shape the undersides of these very large rocks it is also reasonable to believe they were just as likely to have been brought to the sites by the builders. But without evidence no useful conclusions can be made

As they say to assume is to make an ass out of u and me.

Avebury Stones

 As a part of their wonderful ongoing project to make the information free  The Avebury Papers write: "As an experiment, we have also added the stones of Avebury to Wikidata, along with their coordinates, and, in a few cases, photographs from the archive. This data can now be queried to create an interactive map of the stones (below), or you can run the query yourself here, just click the blue ‘play’ button on the page you land on".

A monument born from climate change

Bryan Lovell investigates how a warm period in Earth’s history associated with Icelandic volcanism could have shaped our ancient stones

The silcretes used to build the Stonehenge sarsens plausibly formed under the warm climatic conditions of the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum

https://geoscientist.online/sections/features/a-monument-born-from-climate-change/

The Shebbear Erratic Sarsen

During Storm Darragh, 7/12/2024, I had the pleasure of driving through Shebbear in Devon.

I examined the erratic on the village green, that is turned over every year to keep the devil at bay.

The photos are below, click to embiggen them.

This year's top surface is a typical sarsen, a tight silica bound sandstone with some iron staining, the lower half is not so well silicified, a thumbnail can dislodge grains. The sand component is coarser and includes small rounded gravel. The relative fragility of it indicates it has never been transported by ice.

It is, without doubt, an outlier of the sarsens found else where in Devon, how far it has been moved by humans to its present prominent position is unknown but the presence of another similar stone in the parish suggests maybe not far. 

 

Current Archaeology Awards 2024

The Current Archaeology Awards are now open for voting:

Can I recommend these three nominees for your consideration as their subject matter links to the interests of this blog?

Book of the Year:

Stone Circles: a field guide
Colin Richards & Vicki Cummings

Stonehenge: sighting the sun
C Ruggles & A Chadburn

Research Project of the Year 2025

Seeking a Scottish source: updating the story of Stonehenge’s Altar Stone

Richard Bevins, Rob Ixer, Nick Pearce, and Tony Clarke