Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, 34, p.139-198, 1899-1900.
Uncharacteristically, Fred's plan of the site
above does not compare well with more modern surveys,
the outer ring-cairn kerb, in particular, seems very distorted. Fred does mention that
the site was very overgrown during his visits and this may have caused difficulties in
Apart from the undergrowth, Fred's view from the south agrees well with our photos.
The recumbent viewed from inside the circle, again, this picture agrees well with modern photos.
On Some Antiquities in
the Neighbourhood of Dunecht House Aberdeenshire,
Plate IV, Cambridge University Press 1921
A scant sketch, but at least it shows the eastern flanker was missing then.
Archaeologia, 22, p.202 pl,XXIV, 1829.
Logan has captured the site
well although he has distorted the ring-cairn and stone circle into ellipses to
allow for the interstitial recumbent placement and "forecourt" structure.
The Hill Forts Stone Circles and Other Structural Remains of Ancient Scotland, Pl.XXVII, Edmonston & Douglas, 1875, Edinburgh
Maclagan has depicted most
of the structural elements correctly, however she has
erroneously placed the recumbent in the outer ring-cairn kerb circle, when it is actually
situated between this and the stone circle. The "SW" indication above the recumbent is
also wrong, the recumbent actually sits almost due south.
Note also the suggestion of a Malta temple-style trefoil inner space.