It isn't too clear either way and comparison with
http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/post/25616
might lead you to say the stones were the front stones.
The suggestion that they were probably the back stones picks up a Frances Lynch comment about a "rather poor sketch" by Stukeley which shows two triangular stones to the E of the present remains possibly marking the original entrance. (Megalithic Enquiries p129)
 Reply | with quote | Posted by greywether
18th March 2004ce
16:20In reply to: Back? (FourWinds) |
Back? (FourWinds, Mar 18, 2004, 15:46)- opens eye and sees (FourWinds, Mar 18, 2004, 16:00)
- Re: Back? (greywether, Mar 18, 2004, 16:20)
|
|
Head To Head 
