Thanks, useful to see that context.
It's worth mentioning that the Ordnance Survey didn't employ any archaeologists until the 1920s, and "stone" on a map in non-antiquity typeface means just that, a stone. It didn't have to be standing, or have anything to indicate artificial placement. It was just a stone big enough to warrant someone noticing it. I'm sure there were guidelines about how big a stone had to be to show, but I'm also fairly certain that different surveyors/draughtsmen interpreted the guidelines slightly flexibly!
None of which is to dismiss the idea that there could have been circles, just to point out that in itself a "stone" appearing on a 19th century 6 inch map is a pretty unreliable basis for a theory without something else to support it.
 Reply | with quote | Posted by thesweetcheat
19th November 2017ce
22:05 |
Wirral Megalithic Sites (david gregg, Nov 19, 2017, 11:10)- Re: Wirral Megalithic Sites (Evergreen Dazed, Nov 19, 2017, 12:02)
- Re: Wirral Megalithic Sites (Sanctuary, Nov 19, 2017, 21:23)
- Re: Wirral Megalithic Sites (thelonious, Nov 21, 2017, 19:12)
- Re: Wirral Megalithic Sites (Sanctuary, Nov 25, 2017, 12:57)
- Re: Wirral Megalithic Sites (vickidcasey, Feb 15, 2018, 11:37)
- Re: Wirral Megalithic Sites (bernicestockstill, Feb 15, 2018, 14:31)
|
|
Head To Head 
Re: Wirral Megalithic Sites (Sanctuary)