|
 Log in |
Register
|
|
 Head To Head The Modern Antiquarian Scotland Forum | Start a topic | Search |
27 messages | Select a forum: |
summerlands wrote: One thing I do keep reading is about possible circles that get lost in forestry - and I wonder if you plant trees you loose a circle, esp an already damamged one, in or to trees a lot easier than a cairn. Lot's of cairns still traceable in woods, but I can't think off top of many standing stones or circles known amongst trees around here... The circles we do know tend to be of quite modest stones. I personally recon we've lost quite a number. But I agree it's definitely not stone country like the likes of other areas. The barrows in Reigate Heath have trees planted in them(apparently a Victorian thing....anyone know why??)....and it may have been a common practice elsewhere. "Forests" as we know the expression was a Norman creation and were hunting areas(hence Ashdown forest for eg being thin on the ground tree-wise)...We know stones were removed for building purposes in many instances.....and some places still have "stone" in the name though the general concensus is that this is a bastardisation of tun/ton/town(ie a settlement)...it might be that a stone once stood prominently in some of these places though. There are a few Surrey and Sussex places with "stone" in the name...but no sign of any circles....Redstone being one exception as there is a tumulus on the common(in line with the small twin hills of St. Johns below...there is a church on one and on the other a school ) Reply | with quote | Posted by Resonox 24th September 2011ce 06:03 In reply to: Re: Lack of stone circles north of Inverness? (summerlands)3 replies: Re: Lack of stone circles north of Inverness? (summerlands) Re: Lack of stone circles north of Inverness? (GLADMAN) Re: Lack of stone circles north of Inverness? (BigSweetie) |
Messages in this topic: |