08-15-2006, 11:42 AM
I have to disagree with the millstone interpretation, because the socket is square. The upper stone would need to turn on a rounded rod and, if you were to convert the square piece located in the centre of the lower stone to a rod above the surface thereof, you would lose grinding power where the top stone met the bare wood around the rod. I've got a quern and I find a deal of unground grain collects around the central pillar, even though mine is circular in cross-section.
I can't see why it would be used as a base for an artillery-piece, either, again because a circular hole would be more likely, so that the weapon could be "trained" from left to right. I suppose you could set the central support of the piece in the stone, and have the rotation taking place where the support meets the weapon. In either case, you'd have a one-legged artillery-piece, which strikes me as dangerously insecure.
I can't see why it would be used as a base for an artillery-piece, either, again because a circular hole would be more likely, so that the weapon could be "trained" from left to right. I suppose you could set the central support of the piece in the stone, and have the rotation taking place where the support meets the weapon. In either case, you'd have a one-legged artillery-piece, which strikes me as dangerously insecure.
