There was an interesting article in 3rd stone by Jeremy Harte that presents
convincing evidence that the figure is not ancient which i think is the only
conclusion you can come to by looking at the facts even if that is not what you
want to believe. here is a quote from the article:
"no 17thcentury deeds or field names referred to the figure, despite his obvious
advantages as a landmark. Even Giant Hill appears as Trendle Hill, after an
earthwork at its summit, until 1700. Neither the churchwardens nor the estate
managers, as we have seen, record the work of recutting the Giant before 1694. He
is absent, not only from national surveys by antiquaries
like Camden, but from the notes of local scholars such as Gerard who had passed
through Cerne in 1625, and from a very detailed survey of the manor in 1617."
This is in dramatic contrast to the genuinely ancient hillfigure at uffington
where the first record is of a white horse hill in the 1070's and of the actual
figure in 1190.
you can read the article here:
Itzpapalotl hasn't added a profile