The Modern Antiquarian. Stone Circles, Ancient Sites, Neolithic Monuments, Ancient Monuments, Prehistoric Sites, Megalithic MysteriesThe Modern Antiquarian

Head To Head   The Modern Antiquarian   General Discussion Forum Start a topic | Search
The Modern Antiquarian
Re: Wirral Megalithic Sites
26 messages
Select a forum:
thesweetcheat wrote:
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.


Interesting, it brought to mind quite a few stones randomly recorded near to the Bitton Barrow and the river. The stones disappeared at a later date under a sewage plant but they always intrigued me.
So I shall add this lost piece of information gleaned from the map to the Bitton Barrow http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/site/5494/bitton.html, though the stones seem to have no logic, history has laid them alongside a Roman road, which would seem to prove that earlier settlements existed. Thank you for making me go back and visit an old 'theory'....

http://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore[...].4175&lon=-2.4674&layers=6&b=1


Reply | with quote
moss
Posted by moss
20th November 2017ce
09:06

In reply to:

Re: Wirral Megalithic Sites (thesweetcheat)

1 reply:

Re: Wirral Megalithic Sites (thesweetcheat)

Messages in this topic: