The stone stands on the edge of a hill that is reckoned to be an ancient burial mound. It is hard to say whether it is a wholly natural glacial deposit, or not. At present, I don't know whether any archaeology has taken place there. There is a sizeable converted stables, a field, and beside the Stone, a Victorian-style Mausoleum with other burials of the Fergusson family alongside that, so the flattened-out area is quite considerable. I half-wondered whether it had been a hillfort at some time, since it has a really commanding view of the surrounding countryside, overlooking Pitlochry and consequently, the road that leads up to it. From the number of non-Pictish standing stones in the area, it appears it has been settled for several centuries.

It is strongly advised you go to Pitlochry, and approach it from that side. The Logierait road is much more scenic, but it is single-track, and I could imagine it being difficult in the Summer and Autumn, if there were any number of tourists, and/or
farm traffic. It is not equipped with proper passing places. It has the feel of quite an ancient track that has been tarmaced over as an estate road.

The Stone.

It is a thin smallish stone, disappointing in that it is is not the megalith that illustrations seem to imply it is. The Cross occupies the side in the shade of the tall yew trees that surround it. For some strange reason, the stone has been tucked into a stone-sided structure with glass front and back doors, which is fine for the Symbol side, but leaves the Cross side in almost total shade. I wanted a photo, but it was practically impossible to get a decent view of it, even if the flash doesn't flare off the glass. It's almost as though, having protected the stone, and directed you to it, Historic Scotland doesn't really care if you see it or not. Be warned, you'll probably need a flash, or a tripod for a long exposure, if you intend taking a picture of it.

The Cross.

Anyway. It seems to be a multi-layered cross, the centre "square" being the furthest out layer. The equal-sided cross with notches in the corners is next, and the "support" for the head of the cross is below that again. The difference in depths is minimal, achieved mainly by increments of ¼" ( 6mm) or so.
I put the "square" (1) in inverted commas because the sides are slightly dished i.e. ) ( .
Note that the North and South segments of the cross (2) have five buttons each, while the East and West segments (3) have only three each. Unfortunately, the domes are too severely eroded to be absolutely certain what kind of decoration they have, but I think they are composed of swirls like bananas laid on their sides, touching each other in the centre, and curling out towards the rim. (See detail) The backgrounds on the upper and lower arms (2) of the cross have swirling infill, while the side panels have squarer infill.
Immediately below the upper section of the cross (4) there a narrow, shallow piece of knotwork to fill the neck where the shaft curves into the head of the cross.
Below this again, there are two sets of four leaf-like loops of knotwork (5) which fill roughly 5/8ths of the length of the shaft.
This ends and six panels of connected stringwork Type (6) fill down to the bottom of the shaft.
The sides ( and presumably the top; it is badly crumbled) have a narrow knotwork border.

As is often the case, the stone is divided into panels, roughly, depending on which size the individual carvings end up. The "dog" and the stag run into each other, for instance, and there is no space for a divider, and the upper angel is too big to fit comfortably within the box between the lower arms of the cross, so his divider has been stepped down to accomodate him.

The topmost left panel (7) seems to depict somebody's idea of what the Sphinx might have looked like standing up. At any rate, it has an animal body, walking left to right, with a human face looking out at you, with long hair curved up at shoulder height.
Below the West arm of the cross, there is one of the Picts' powerful humpy-backed animals (8), a fox, I think, snarling over its back at something.
Section 3 has, above, a dog (9) with something dangling from his jaws, and below, a magnificent stag (10), again looking backwards, but this time merely to get it to fit into the available space.
The bottom-most left panel has what seems to some sort of dragon (11) standing on its buckled fish-like tail. At first I thought it was a dog with a fish-tail, but it has claws instead of pad feet and a fin on its back above the tail. Had it been standing horizontally, it would seem to have something, which it is biting, pinned to the ground with its front paw(s) (Only three paws are shown.)

The top right panel contains two fighting animals (12), or perhaps one predating on the other. The upper one seems more robust than the one it's standing on, especially about the jaws at least.
Underneath the East arm of the cross, appears an angel (13), facing the cross. He/ she / it has long hair, four wings, one pair pointing upwards, the other pair downwards. It seems to be holding a rod in one hand. It is hard to see, and may be a miscarving, or a trick of the light. Since the angel is facing left, but appears to be body-forward, and the wings sprout out of curls in what is presumably the chest, and not the back, it is impossible to see whether it is intended to have arms at all. The angel (14) in the panel below has no indication of arms, although it almost identical to the other one, except for having a border on its knee-length dress, and being marginally smaller.
The creature below that (15) is reminiscent of the peculiar "camel-with-claws" on Saint Orland's Stone except that here the head is snake-like and its neck is serpentine, very similar to the snakes in Serpent-and-Z-rod symbols.
The final panel (16) has an antelope-like beast (or it could be some form of long-nosed goat) squatting with its front and rear hooves neatly interlocked, and its long tail grasped between its jaws.

I got the impression, though with the poor lighting, and the wear on the stone generally, I wouldn't swear to it, that there might have been some kind of infill on the bodies of the animals, at least the more mythical looking ones

The Symbol Side.

The sides and top of this side are framed by a serpent running up either side. Their jaws are open, their teeth show, and they seem to be supporting a human head between what is either their tongues, or licks of flame. The nick out of the top of the stone was obviously there either before, or during, carving because the right serpent head is lower than the left, to allow for the missing bit of stone. The long cylindrical bodies end in "S"-shaped loops with fish tails pointing downwards to the base of the stone. The bodies are undecorated.
Below the human head, there is an large uneven patch which may have contained further carving, but I couldn't make anything out. It is curious that the head has a definite downward-curling crescent under his chin, which indicated there might be details of his body in the rough patch.
This patch occurs between a definite Dolphin to the left, and a Double-disc, and Crescent-and-V-rod to its right.
Immediately below the Dolphin, (which leans forward to the right) a seated figure on a substantial looking chair with curved armrests. He (short hair, or shaven head) has no visible arms, and the cloak reaches right to the ground. He is facing right, across a cross that appears to be a small free-standing replica of the one on the other side of the slab, at the other person.
This person is also bare-headed, with no arms, but has visible feet, and is about 1/3rd bigger than the other. If it is not just a trick of the light, he seems to be bearded, and has a tall collar. He has the Double-disc and the Crescent above and in front of him, and he is facing the other figure. The V of the Crescent points to the right.
Taking up almost 1/3rd of the total surface is a horseman whose head projects awkwardly into the panel above, so that the cross looks almost like a hat he's wearing. It is difficult to see whether he has curly hair and a ponytail, or curly hair and a stand-up collar. He seems to have a long cloak. His horse has a saddle-cloth with a border. The rider sits with his legs well forward, with no obvious stirrups. He is riding left to right, towards a Crescent-and-V-rod and Dolphin. The V of the Crescent this time points down and left , and the Dolphin leans leftwards. Does this rider represent a coalition of the Dolphin and Crescent tribes, or are the other two cadet branches of his tribe? His single representation takes up as much as the other two's put together, and he is central, after all.

Is there any significance to the fact that the Hammer, Anvil and Pincers are quite deeply incised on a background with shallow borders, and the other carvings are relatively shallower with deep borders?
The surface areas have not been particularly well smoothed-off anyway, between the figures, but I do get the impression that this is a re-used stone. Other cases occur where the previous symbols are erased, or the stone has been turned upside down to allow carvings to be made on the reverse side. Perhaps in this case they wanted to use both sides, and cleaned down as far as the "blacksmith's tools", but somehow felt they had to leave them ? The Pincers, for example, are as big as any two of the upper symbols put together, and are as long as the bigger seated figure is tall. They are almost as long as the rider is tall, and as long as his horse excluding the tail.
If the three bottom tools are to be considered a set, they must be highly significant, seeing as they occupy almost 30% of the available surface area.

This stone underlines the problems associated with illustrations and diagrams.
We subconsciously develop an idea of what size the symbols etc are, and, ignoring the actual dimensions given, we construct a mental picture based on our expectations.
I expected a towering great monolith, based on previous experiences, but it was less than half the size, because all the symbols (except the "blacksmith's" ) had been scaled-down.
I thought there might be a potent statement of a great dynastic coalition between two of the Pictish subkingdoms. Maybe in its own understated way, it is. Perhaps the stone was so important locally that the incoming clerics had to claim it, whatever their own inclinations were. Their professed modesty was mainly fake, after all. Perhaps the real prize was a few miles down the road, at Dunkeld, for that is where the Bishops built their Cathedral, after all.

I'll try to burrow into the background of this stone, since there is probably more to it than meets the eye. After all the stone that was the inspiration for this site was even less impressive, superficially.