When is a standing stone not a standing stone?

close
more_vert
nigelswift N
nigelswift Jan 6, 2004 10:30:39
Replying to FourWinds

IMO, building a stone wall with occasional orthostats would result in a weaker structure, so I'd be surprised if they did that, especially as it would involve a lot more effort. But incorporating large boulders horizontally makes constructional sense, and you can see that everywhere.

On the other hand, infilling an existing stone row to make a wall seems a pretty sensible thing to do.

F FourWinds
FourWinds Jan 6, 2004 11:08:46
Replying to nigelswift

I tend towards your later version of timeline, too - stone row -> stone wall.

I said that I haven't seen such walls, but I just remembered that I have, in the Burren, on the limestone pavements. Most of the uprights tend to be much higher than the wall, however. hhmmm

R Rivington Pike
Rivington Pike Jan 8, 2004 20:36:42
Replying to nigelswift

I was intrigued with the comments on stone walls incorporating large monoliths.

I came across this stretch of wall at the base of a steep escarpment on the edge of Anglezarke Moor.

I can't decide if the large stones at the base are an older feature later converted into a wall or a comtempory structure.

How can this structure be dated?

http://photos.freeserve.com/album/album_fullsize.html?c_photo=6523646


RIV