highlyeccentric: Sheer Geekiness, unfortunately - I just think this stuff is really cool (phd comics) (Sheer Geekiness)
[personal profile] highlyeccentric
First, a lovely photo of Cambridge from Castle Mound:


 photo DSCN2531_zpsf24ff23f.jpg


Not too far from Castle Mound, we found

With its cute, wonkily subsided 13th century doorway (theory is there used to be a stream under here somewhere, probably explains the subsidence):


 photo DSCN2534_zpsf889a617.jpg


And an odd feature, shingling on the arch:


 photo DSCN2546_zps1ae6ccac.jpg


There are also vertical beakheads:


 photo DSCN2535_zpsd2a21262.jpg


Fierce, no? Almost as fierce as our friend here, who overlooks the churchyard:


 photo DSCN2541_zps85613d43.jpg


In which churchyard there is a this:

 photo DSCN2543_zpsbd86f2d3.jpg

A font? But it's sorta square. I think the prevailing opinion is the generic 'ritual purposes', possibly predating the church, but that might be stretching it a bit.

Inside is tiny and white and in the care of the Churches Conservation Trust:

 photo DSCN2536_zpsae925a34.jpg

And there is a font with merpeople on it:

 photo DSCN2538_zps893741c3.jpg

Apparently merpersons are rare - and of course possibly of pagan significance (and possibly not, but no one likes to put that on their tourist brochures; the CCT point out that St Peter was a fisherman, though).

 photo dd3d10f5-924f-4e4b-ad48-cd220cf39cad_zps8184ecd9.jpg

Seems like water was a feature of the area, at any rate.

Now, the font is 12th century; the south door is 13th; and the fower which I didn't photograph, is 14th at least in part. The church was substantially rebuilt in the 18th century, though, or so wikipedia tells me. The changes in stonework lead me to think most of the roof and bits of the upper walls were the focus of the rebuilding:

 photo DSCN2545_zpscee06644.jpg

(And I would be right: J.P.C. Roach tells me so, and also that the 'scale' of the church was reduced in the rebuilding.)

I was intruiged by this blocked-up archway - especially by the fact that a smaller inner arch seems to have been built in the process of blocking. Interesting! Roach isn't much use here, but druidic.org would like me to believe that this arch dates back to the original foundation. That wouldn't be the square stone arch, it'd be the rough stone arch you can just make out around it. I'd like to think the original archway had to be reinforced at some point with the big square stones, and then filled in later on.

Date: 2013-08-18 05:45 pm (UTC)
monksandbones: An ink drawing of a mitered bishop in the margin of a column of text from the 12th-century liber albus sancti florentii (liber albus sancti florentii)
From: [personal profile] monksandbones
Ooh, very cool! I wonder what my fellow medievalist grad student C, who works on baptism, would make of the mermaids font? Or for that matter, my former fellow medievalist grad student A (now with a sweet job in Minnesota)? I think they'd both, not to mention fellow grad student J who works on archaeology, be available to thwack the author of the brochure with the scholarly codfish of Christian-Pagan-dichotomies-are-bad-and-wrong-conversion-didn't-work-like-that!

Profile

highlyeccentric: Sign on Little Queen St - One Way both directions (Default)
highlyeccentric

August 2025

S M T W T F S
      12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31      

Most Popular Tags

Page Summary

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Aug. 4th, 2025 03:40 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios