Hob wrote: That photo can't be the stone described, surely?
(Or rather it could, but the description could be a severe case of over-imagination.)
The item doesn't give a site-visit date so it could be a dubious entry, culled from other sources. It does say "At least…" so who knows? I came across these the other day:
http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/site/8769
and they're not even mentioned in the book.
Andy
Reply | with quote | Posted by ryaner 11th September 2006ce 22:42 |
|