The Story behind the Stone – the families, estates and stories of Kirkmichael, Cullicudden, the Black Isle and beyond

Our Claymore Stones

text: Dr Jim Mackay    photos as given below each image

One of the great under-researched subjects in kirkyard studies is Scotland’s heritage of Claymore Stones.

Thus far we have discovered twelve Claymore Stones at Kirkmichael. Almost all of them have been re-used since their first placement, some of them several times over. Most of them carry a date, ranging from 159[?]1[?] to 1630. A thirteenth, dated 1605, lies in our complementary kirkyard at Cullicudden. Those with a distinguishable date at Kirkmichael are from 159[?]1[?], 1600, 1600, 1601, 1601, 1603, 1605, 1609 and, an outlier, 1630. December 2022 update: one more has turned up in the kirkyard of East Church Cromarty the next parish east from Kirkmichael – date 1605.

My theory is that post-Reformation, when the ornate crosses and symbols of Scotland’s Roman Catholic memorial past had become anathema, and before the late 1600s when the Protestant symbols of mortality became common in the Highlands, the only symbol families felt comfortable with was the Claymore. At a time when even the Cross was considered taboo, the Claymore was considered a respectable symbol. That its shape evoked the Cross was perhaps more than just coincidence.

Our understanding of Claymore stones has developed as we have found more. It is possible (based on admittedly the very limited evidence of one stone) that the longer Claymore symbols are on the older stones; the further into the 1600s the more other ornamentation appears and the Claymore shrinks in length accordingly. A few more stones and a few more dates would assist in testing this theory! Apart from the 1630 stone, the other eight dated stones at Kirkmichael and the one dated stone at Cullicudden, all lie within the very narrow period of 159[?]1[?] to 1609, and this in itself is intriguing.

The great length of the hilt on the Claymore was to allow both hands to hold the sword at the same time. The weight and length of the Claymore required a double-handed grip, especially when the fearsome weapon was being swung around one’s head, scything down any opponent who came within its deadly orbit. The image below is from Wikipedia and is of a replica of a Scottish claymore. This replica is a “Chieftain Limited Edition Medieval Scottish War Sword”, sold by Albion Europe. The sword measures: Total length: 118 cm (46.46 in); Blade length: 92 cm (36.02 in); Weight: 1.8 kg (3.968 lbs); Grip length: 18.3 cm (7.205 in). Note the inclined quillons and pierced quatrefoil terminals which are represented on some of the carvings at Kirkmichael.

Claymore replica; source Wikipedia, Creative Commons Licence

The Claymore Stones in Kirkmichael are variable in design as will be seen from the following images.


1601 The Keren Family (our reference Stone 1047)

This slab had a very public exposure. Each year for the Highland Archaeology Festival we invite visitors to attend while we uncover a previously unrecorded slab. We always do a little keyhole investigation first, to ensure there is something there, but we are as much in the dark as our guests as to what we will find.

On 5th October 2019 everybody was delighted to experience a rarity being uncovered. I think everybody sensed our own excitement as the slab was revealed.

Our visitors were delighted as the new Claymore Stone emerged; photo by Andrew Dowsett

I elegantly illustrate the length of the new Claymore; photo by Andrew Dowsett

It took some time to extricate the date as the top was more badly eroded than the remainder. We thought we had a date from a session late at night with extreme oblique photography and a 100 Watt lamp (nicknamed the Kirkmichael Lampie). However, subsequent photogrammetric images indicated in fact the correct date is 1601. It was less ornate than some of the slabs, and instead of the usual clockwise inscription around the perimeter, it bore a simplistic and apparently incomplete dedication at the top:

Kirkmichael outlined by lamplight during an evening session with this stone; photo by Andrew Dowsett

The date 1601 appears on the Keren stone thanks to the photogrammetry of Andy Hickie

The Claymore runs most of the length of the slab which is 1.88 m long, 0.68 m wide at the top, 0.53 m wide at the base, and 0.16 m deep at a point midway across top. The inscription startled us, as the surname of the family was one we had never seen in the Resolis records:


image by raking light at night on left: Andrew Dowsett; photogrammetric image on right: Andy Hickie

I have no Resolis records of the family of Keren, but I note from the Cromarty church registers, which commence in the mid 1600s, that there were families named Keren and Keran in Udale, Peddieston and elsewhere in the parish at that time. Resolis church records do not exist for this period, but it would be safe to assume that with several Keren families in Cromarty, there would also be several in Kirkmichael.

The marriage of Thomas Keran and Janet Tailour in Cromarty in 1680

Tenenich (and variant spellings) lay between Kirkmichael and Udale, a bit to the west of modern day Jemimaville (red spot on the map from approximately this period by Gordon). There was once a market here. Braelangwell is in blue, Kirkmichael in pink.

Gordon map of Kirkmichael in the 1600s


Undated Re-used by W McK / IF / 1782 (our reference Stone 1088)

Having uncovered the “Keren” Claymore stone for the first Saturday open day of the Highland Archaeology Festival on 5 October 2019, we anticipated that the slab we uncovered the following weekend, on 12 October 2019, would be a more typical slab from the 1700s. We knew it was there from some “keyhole investigation” in advance but more than that was just guesswork. And so it appeared on first uncovering, a rather challenging exercise in itself as it lies very deep, partly under the main path to the south of the nave and partly under the corner of the Peter Mackenzie headstone. One set of initials near top:
    W McK / I F / 1782
Set of initials below W McK:
    W V / E MK or E MR [ligature M and leg of next letter]
Set of initials in middle, but first letter of each lost by a hole in the stone:
    … K / … C / 1731
About two thirds of the way down:
    I MK [ligature M and R] / HC
Given its proximity to the Peter Mackenzie headstone and related tablestone, it is possible this is a memorial commemorating earlier members of this Mackenzie family, but of course it might be a different family of, for instance, Mackeddie. More research on the family is required.

Excitement as another Claymore emerges; photo by Andrew Dowsett

From left, the Keren Claymore stone still exposed, path, the new Claymore stone, behind it the Peter Mackenzie headstone, and next, the related Maceknzie tablestone; photo by Jim Mackay

And then Davine suggested there was part of a sword visible. She took some chaffing for wishful thinking following our discovery of the previous week, but sure enough when the stone was washed and cleaned up another Claymore stone was revealed! This Claymore stone runs most of the length of the stone, the left quillon lost in the same hole as the sets of initials. The quillon unusually is straight out, although the terminal dips a little. We subjected the stone to night-time oblique photography, and Andy Hickie kindly carried out a photogrammetric exercise. It was a challenge due to the depth of the stone, the proximity of a headstone and having to excavate under the path, but the results show the Claymore to be very worn but distinct enough!

The Claymore can be seen when viewed at an angle; photo by Jim Mackay

But is clearly seen in this photogrammetric image by Andy Hickie

The pommel of the hilt of the sword extends above the 7, although overwritten in places; photo by Jim Mackay


1600 Jhone Hosok in Kirkmichael and his spouse Marion Patirson (our reference Stone 1049)

This slab appeared when the shallow trench for the new path was being excavated in 2017. It was an exciting moment for volunteers and supervising archaeologists.

photo: Andrew Dowsett

The arms or quillons of the Claymore are represented with quatrefoil terminations, and although the stone has spalled on the left arm, the overall sword looks terrific.

The date is set out on the top line. The inscription then runs clockwise from top right around the slab. I suspect the final line was inserted somewhat later by his indignant wife!


photo: Andrew Dowsett

Note that John Hossack in Kirkmichael hadn’t actually died at this time – he had obviously had a millennial urge to prepare a special tomb (the meaning of “sepulture” in this context) for his family. The final great “WH” placed across the hilt of the Claymore I would take to be either John Hossack honouring his father or one of John’s posterity recording his own initials on this fabulous stone.


1600 Iames Holm slab (our reference Stone 1015)

This is the faintest of our Claymore Stones. This slab should take a prize for the number of re-uses it has survived.

The more recent inscriptions are:

DH / 1777 / MM
IH IB / 1806

This slab is from a line of Holm stones, so we can assume these are Holm inscriptions. Below these modern carvings are an earlier pair of defaced initials and overwritten earlier date: DA, perhaps, and 1723 or 1725.

photogrammetric images by Andy Hickie

I noted that the top right corner of the perimeter inscription was temptingly close to readability and so I asked Friend of Kirkmichael and photogrammetry enthusiast Andy Hickie if he could develop some photogrammetric images of this slab to assist. Lo and behold, a date and name appeared on the corner:


And what should faintly appear but the hilt and blade of a Claymore!


1603 Euphemia in Belcherrie (our reference Stone 1038)

This slab is 1.84 m long, 0.80 m wide at the top and 0.55 m wide at the base. The Claymore runs most of the length of the slab, and there is an axe to its left. The hilt of the sword has not been accurately carved in line with the centre of the sword blade, being a little too far to the left.

The original names on this slab have been obliterated to be replaced with a more modern Urquhart inscription:


The obliterated inscription includes:


Axe and Claymore; photo by Jim Mackay

The obliterated text lies between the red spots; photo by Jim Mackay


1605 Donald H … K (our reference Stone 148)

This slab is 1.90 m long and (surprisingly) rectangular, being 0.63 m wide at both top and base. A faint Claymore runs down the length of stone. It has downward pointing quillons, and perforated terminals to both quillons and hilt.

The faint Claymore can only be picked out on the wetted stone, at an angle; photo by Jim Mackay

The downward sloping quillons are difficult to pick out; photo by Jim Mackay

photo by Jim Mackay

The modern inscription is:


The original inscription around the perimeter was mostly unreadable, but much is now known due to the photogrammetry of Andy Hickie.

photogrammetric image by Andy Hickie

Running clockwise, starting on right side:



1630 Henrie Urquhart in Birks (our reference Stone 1036)

This slab was the subject of a mild discussion during the restoration works. Our excellent archaeologists were supervising the excavation by the volunteers of the new path close to the church, recording as we went. A corner of what was clearly an interesting stone appeared. A debate then ensued as to whether or not it was appropriate to expose the remainder of the stone. I’m afraid I was rather blunt in that if it wasn’t exposed then, it would soon be exposed after working hours! It turned out to be a beautiful Urquhart Claymore slab, of the latest date of those found at Kirkmichael.

A corner of the intriguing old stone projects into the route of the path; photo: Jim Mackay

The Claymore bears lobated pommels (i.e. quatrefoil terminals on the quillons, as per our leading photograph). It is the shortest of the Claymore swords seen so far, and the latest. I suspect the length was due to the flaw in the stone further down the stone into which the sword should have extended – the carver negotiated it with his border lines with some difficulty and simply avoided it with the sword by keeping it short.


photo: Andrew Dowsett

There were many Urquharts in Resolis in 1630. I presume Henry Urquhart’s wife’s maiden name was Urquhart too, so Henry Urquhart of Birks married Anna Urquhart. There is no guarantee that the John Urquhart from a century later (1739) was a descendant, but it is likely. I take it that John married Euphiem Paterson, and their son was Thomas Urquhart. The slab immediately to the north is also an Urquhart stone, with a curious “inkwell” feature.


1601 Andrew slab (our reference Stone 1011)

This stone shows evidence of several later uses. The most recent inscription is:

AH IF / IH / 1758

It lies within a long line of Holm stones, so it can be fairly safely assumed the most recent re-user was an Andrew or Angus or Alexander Holm. The original perimeter wording at the base seems to have been replaced with a crudely carved heart and letters:


Since the last paragraph was written, we have gained experience of more Claymore stones and their different inscription styles, and they include in some cases this “crude” style of text and I now think it likely that the “crudely carved heart” and “RE FOR HIM” are actually the mid-section of an original “SEPVLTVRE FOR HIMSELF”. The wise are always learning!

The original inscription is worn away. This slab is trapped under the thick adjacent stone so inspection is very challenging. However, a faint Claymore can be seen – the blade and the hilt, including the pommel at the end, are just visible, and the terminals on the quillons can also be distinguished. Were we to free this slab from the memorial pressing down on it, we could probably recover more information from it.

The curious heart and cryptic letters at the base; photo by Jim Mackay

The perforated pommel of the hilt; photo by Jim Mackay

Update June 2021. The Trust volunteers re-visited this slab, uncovering both it and the big slab that lay partly above it. In order to free the Claymore slab, the large slab was pushed several inches to the south. This was done by clearing a gap to the south of the large slab and, using the leg-power of the volunteers and a little rocking with a large plank to free the slab, the big slab was simply pushed out of the way.

photos by Davine Sutherland

The Claymore slab was then both photographed with extreme slanting light at night, and photographed and subjected to photogrammetry by Andy Hickie. The date of February 1601 appeared, and the person who prepared the sepulture emerges as AND… – presumably ANDREW. Combination of photography and photogrammetry allowed the Claymore to be more fully drawn.

photos by Jim Mackay

photogrammetry by Andy Hickie

Curiously, the left edge of the slab had been chiselled away by some later mason, so only the bottom half of the letters on that side are visible, and only the first few letters at that – the bottom half of the word SELF. The inscription as it currently stands therefore is:
(top) … [FEB]RVARI (right side) 1601 ANDR … … SEPVL (base) TVRE FOR HIM (left side) SELF … … …

the chiselled-off edge of the slab; photo by Andrew Dowsett


1609 Donald Davidson Miller in Kinbeachie (our reference Stone 1110)

This stone was buried very deeply; we had to shift more than a foot of soil and turf on 20 June 2020, in our second post Coronavirus lockdown work party, to reach the slab. It lies underneath another slab for a good part of its length and is disintegrating badly over about half of its surface, with roots from the nearby yews infiltrating all the cracks in the slab. Why it should be disintegrating when it is so far below the effects of frost I do not know.

The disintegrating Claymore slab commemorating Donald Davidson, Miller in Kinbeachie; photo by Andrew Dowsett

It is a big slab, 1.98 m long, with a width at its top about 0.75 m dropping to about 0.72 m at its base. It is as usual about 0.15 m thick. The perimeter text starts at top right and we are lucky to have recovered as much as we have:
Base: stone disintegrated
Left hand side: most of it disintegrated and then: .. .. ..EIS IN YIS SEP..LTVRI
Top side: 7 FEBRUARII 1609
A later family has fitted in around the sword: IM MG / WM / CW

Part of the inscription; photo by Jim Mackay

And the date of 1609 squeezed in at the end of the perimeter inscription; photo by Jim Mackay

Only a few sections of the sword survive. On the right is a clear quillon with perforated terminal (five holes). Some of the hilt above this, and some of the sword blade, can be picked out

Part of handle, quillon with perforated terminal; photo by Jim Mackay

Part of the blade can be picked out further down the disintegrating slab; photo by Jim Mackay


Undated “for himself and his posteritie” (our reference Stone 1114)

This slab was exceptionally challenging to record as it nestles right in at the base of one of the two yew trees in the centre of the kirkyard. Those trees should never have been planted in this location – we think they went in about 1900 on either side of the Macphail headstone. The top corner of this slab cannot be read as the tree has grown over it. The Claymore is shorter and the perimeter inscription much more roughly inscribed than usual. The slab itself is 1.84 m in length. At first we were not even sure if it was a Claymore slab but then the blade emerged.

The slab photographed obliquely whilst wet, in daylight; photo: Andrew Dowsett

Night-time photography with a floodlight at different angles allowed us to pick out some roughly inscribed characters.

The slab photographed at night; photo: Jim Mackay

The inscriptions on these Claymore stones at Kirkmichael seem to use the phrase “for himself and his posterity” frequently. One bears the inscription “JHONE HOSOK IN KIRKMICHAEL HES PREPARID THIS SEPULTURE FOR HIMSELF & HIS POSTERITIE 19 APRILIS 1600 AND MARION PATIRSON HIS SPOUS” and another “HENRIE WRQWHART IN bIRRKS HES PREPARIT THIS SEPWLTVR / FOR HIM SELF / & ANNA WRQWHART & THAIR POSTERITI 1630”. And that phrase is about all that can be made out on this particular slab! The top line of the perimeter inscription is partially obscured by the yew, although I think that line could be read if access could be achieved. The right hand line seems too eroded for the first part and then it becomes clearer as it goes around the base and heads back up on the left hand side: “FOR HIMSELF AND HIS POSTERITIE”. The word before “FOR” definitely ends with “RE” and I think I can make out “SEPULTURE” but would not swear to it. The business section of course with “himself’s” name and the date of his demise is on the heavily eroded section, but if the stone could be accessed properly then with photogrammetric techniques perhaps the key information would become clear. There are later initials “WD / DB” and given there are several Barnet slabs in close proximity then I assume this slab was later adopted by the Barnet family.

A few letters can be made out on the top line; photo by Jim Mackay

The sword emerges more clearly; photo by Jim Mackay

As an aside, one of the photographs of this stone contains a startling example of pareidolia, or a face emerging from an artifact. My family also see a face here, so it is not just my perception!

photo by Jim Mackay

photo by Jim Mackay


Undated, re-used for Thomas Mackeddie and Anne McRae 1760 (our reference Stone 1122)

This slab was the most diffult to record in Kirkmichael as it lay below another one. We think the one on top, itself a re-used slab from the 1700s, was pushed sideways out of the way to create space for a large Cameron tablestone. In fact, it was the restoration of this tablestone that triggered the investigation of this hidden slab, as we wished to complete any disturbance in the area before putting the tablestone back up (you can see the new foundation, the supports and the tablestone slab in the background of several of these action pictures). The line of stones within which the Claymore slab lies commemorate members of the Cameron alias Mackeddie family. In this part of the Black Isle, the two surnames were interchangeable, so when researching a family in the archives you have to look out for Cameron and Mckedie, Mackeddy, Mackiddie and all variants thereof.

turf is temporarily removed to a tarpaulin; photo by Davine Sutherland

a 49 lb punch is used with a plank to spread the weight whilst lifting the top slab just a little; photo by Davine Sutherland

supporting blocks slid in under the top slab; photo by Andrew Dowsett

wooden beams to spread the weight and give leverage are now inserted; photo by Andrew Dowsett

up comes the top slab; photo by Davine Sutherland

with the top slab upright, time to examine the lower slab; photo by Davine Sutherland

the whole slab, displaying multiple uses – and a Claymore! photo by Andrew Dowsett

double cartouche containing the initials of the first people to be commemorated on the slab – the hilt of the Claymore, with its downward pointing quillons, lies below; photo by Andrew Dowsett

I MK is likely to be John Mackeddie but H MF is more difficult to guess; the double cartouche is similar in design to another one in Kirkmichael bearing a date from the 1650s; photo by Andrew Dowsett

the hilt of the Claymore, and the later inscription dated 1760 – we believe these initials to be those of Thomas Mackeddie, tenant in Brae, and his spouse, Anne McRae; photo by Andrew Dowsett

a last look at the Claymore slab before it is covered over, probably not to be viewed again for a very long time; photo by Andrew Dowsett

layers of fine sand and soil are laid to protect the lower slab when the upper slab is lowered once more; photo by Davine Sutherland

and finally the turf is re-laid on the slab on top of a slab; photo by Andrew Dowsett


159[?]1[?], Alexander Hosok in Ardoch and his spouse, Janet Urquhart (our reference Stone 167)

We had previously recorded this slab back in the 1980s, but the record always gave the impression more could be done with it. The perimeter inscription apparently began “ALEXANDER HOSOK MARDOCH HES…” We uncovered it again in November 2022 and there was very clearly the blade of a sword running down the slab. A second family had the central inscription carved in 1757 “THIS STONE BELONGS TO [the husband and the wife] HIS SPOUSE 1757”. However, a panel had been excised from the slab to take the names of a third family, and this had also removed the handle of the sword, although I believe you can see the pommel of the hilt central just above the excised panel. Certainly a shape consistent with the pommel is where it would be expected.

Donald uncovers the slab; photos by Davine Sutherland

The slab is of sandstone, with top edge to the west as usual. Dimensions (all including the width of the chamfer) – width at top 0.84 m. The bottom left corner is missing, but projecting the left side using a straight edge allows width of base to be measured: 0.70 m. Length down middle: 1.92 m. Depth on right hand side, near top: 0.19 m. Distance from tip of sword to base (including chamfer) 0.305 m. Length of remaining blade 0.92 m. Excised panel is 0.35 m high and 0.34 m to top edge (including chamfer). Blade at top is 0.045 m wide.

our 12th Claymore slab; photo by Davine Sutherland

the blade of the Claymore is very clear, but the perimeter text less so. Note the pronounced chamfer on the stone. Photo by Davine Sutherland

As I had suspected “ALEXANDER HOSOK MARDOCH” actually reads “ ALEXANDER HOSOK IN ARDOCH” (what was I thinking back in the 1980s)? More of the words could be made out, but we felt it appropriate to record using multiple angled lighting at night. Most of the perimeter text could now be read.

Claymore by night; photo by Andrew Dowsett

photos by Andrew Dowsett

The inscription now read“ALEXANDER HOSOK IN ARDOCH HES PREPARID / THIS SEPVLTV[RE] / [F]OR HIMSELF & IANET VRQT HIS SPOVS” but the final few words were still mostly unreadable. Time to call in Friend of Kirkmichael and expert in photogrammetry, Andy Hickie. The photogrammetric imagery shows the whole stone to good advantage, and reveals the pommel of the sword to be still extant, partly above the later excised panel.

photogrammetric image by Andy Hickie

After much study, we worked out that the final few words were simply a variant on the usual “& THEIR POSTERITIE” – in this case, & YR SEED”, the ampersand being the type used in this period, and “yr” being the abbreviation in this period for “their”.

photogrammetric image by Andy Hickie

The top edge bears the date, and we used a combination of night-time photography and photogrammetry to confirm that the first two digits of the year were 15, but the stone had lost a section just where the next two digits were carved. While we are confident with the 15, the following 91 is simply our best assessment. The full perimeter inscription thus reads: ALEXANDER HOSOK IN ARDOCH HES PREPARID / THIS SEPVLTV[RE] / [F]OR HIMSELF & IANET URQT HIS SPOVS & YR SEED / 4 APRIL 159[?]1[?]

photograph by Andrew Dowsett; photogrammetric image by Andy Hickie

So that’s the story behind this Claymore stone. Carved back in 1591 or thereabouts for Alexander Hossack and Janet Urquhart in the estate of Ardoch, it was decorated with the only gravestone symbol that was in use at that time: a Claymore. One hundred and fifty years later, another couple had “THIS STONE BELONGS TO [the husband and the wife] HIS SPOUSE 1757”, carved over the head of the sword. And even later than that, the panel bearing the names of this second couple was excised ready for a third family. But their names were never inserted. This stone has had some history!

There continued to be tenants in Ardoch called Hossacks for many generations thereafter. I see in the Index to the Particular Register of Sasines “Agnes Hossack, daughter of Donald Hossack in Ardoch, and spouse of Alexander Huid, merchant, Chanonry of Ross” in the 1620s, “Agnes Hossack, daughter of John Hossack in Ardoch, and spouse of Thomas McCulloch, portioner of Nigg” a few years later. A generation later and I see sasines referencing “Thomas Hossack in Ardoch” and “Helen Hossack, daughter of John Hossack in Ardach, and spouse of Alexander Clunes, portioner of Newtoune”. I am assuming that all these Hossacks were related, as was presumably the Hossack in Kirkmichael on our 1600 Claymore slab. I see from GD1/449/349 in the National Records of Scotland a Grant of Ardoch sasine from 1671 which has “witnesses Colin Dunbar of Birks William Grant brother german to the said John Grant John Gordoun notar public in Cromertie John Hossak tenant in Airdoch; Sasine was accordingly given to John Innes in Airdoch as attorney for said William Grant. These things were done on above date John Thomsone Thomas Thomsone and Alexander Hossak and Donald Urquhart indwellers in Airdoch being witnesses”.


1605 Wiliam Maccae, The Cullicudden Claymore

It would be remiss of me not to include the Claymore slab located in our complementary kirkyard of Cullicudden. This was in fact the very first Claymore Stone I knew about. It had been recorded by Ian Fisher of RCAHMS, under the prompting of local schoolteacher Mrs Penny Poole, who had been promoting the marvellous medieval stones in Cullicudden, several of which are now safely on display in the nave at Kirkmichael. Ian Fisher described the sword as having “inclined quillons and pierced quatrefoil terminals of true ‘claymore’.” The inscription is very crudely written:

This stone / pertins to / WILIAM MACCAE / 1605


1605 The East Church Cromarty Claymore

I spotted whilst reading that excellent book East Church Cromarty A Guide, text by Caroline Vawdrey and David Alston, that there was a “Grave-slab with two-handled sword bearing the date 1604, with initials added later.” On a bleak late November day in 2022, Andrew Dowsett and I uncovered the slab, washed it and recorded it. Photography was challenging given the rain (which had not been forecast) so we adjourned for a spell to the Fishertown Inn. Coincidentally, on the wall beside our table was – a Victorian picture of Somerled King of the Isles holding a sword very similar to the one we were recording. Or so it seemed after a couple of pints. Things seemed to have improved a bit when we got back.

photos by Andrew Dowsett

There is a fairly clear 1605 (not 1604 as in the guidebook) at the top, which fits neatly into the narrow band of dates we have for similar slabs in Kirkmichael and Cullicudden. There was no peripheral text, but there must have been two initials before the date of 1605 which as you can see were excised by the next family using the stone. There is, curiously, a second 1605 carved below the first. There is a later 1749 carved lower lower down, in between the sets of initials so we have: HT / DT / WT / 17 49 / BT straddling the blade of the sword – presumably a dynasty of Thomsons. The right quillon is a little more worn than the left but you can still see that it is perforated.
The dimensions are: 1.92 m long, 0.63 m at top, 0.48 m at base. Each quillon has five perforations. Sword is 1.33  m long. From extremity of one quillon to the other quillon is 0.30 m.

photo by Andrew Dowsett

photo by Andrew Dowsett

I cannot understand why there should be a second 1605 carved below the first. Indeed, the “0” is not that clear, and I did wonder if the second date might be from a later re-use, but I think a “0” can just be made out. A mystery.

photo by Jim Mackay

We now have examples of Claymore slabs from what were at the time three adjacent parishes: Cromarty, Kirkmichael and Cullicudden. The conclusion has to be that other graveyards in the north must also host similar Claymore slabs from this narrow time period.

photo by Andrew Dowsett


Click here to return to the Story behind the Stone gallery