Hi Wideford​…

close
more_vert
Kammer K
Kammer Nov 11, 2005 12:28:59
Replying to StoneLifter

> How's about 'it looks the part' !

But really, it doesn't. It looks like a partially shaped boulder. More of an 'L' shape than the usual elongated thing one would expect. I'm not saying that standing stones have to be long, but if you had the generalise...

I've seen stones that even the archaeologists are prepared to consider as (potentially) prehistoric boundary markers (as oppossed to standing stones), but they weren't shaped like that. I've never seen anything quite like that before in a (UK) prehistoric context. Has anyone else?

S StoneLifter
StoneLifter Nov 11, 2005 14:03:34
Replying to Kammer

It's a circular argument (but there's this one - http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/post/39772 ). It's a rock that supports the view that stones were intended to point out trackways and those walkers are on the Pennine Way. (This section is known to be at least Roman - paved in parts - and is still known as the Maiden Way).

I'm so superstitious about Orkney (and Wales) that I'm prepared to believe all of the rocks in those landscapes were probably stood up 'once upon a time'. There is no objective way of determining which is prehistoric and which not. It always comes down to an expert opinion or painstaking excavations that may, or may not, yield dateable remains.

B BigSweetie
BigSweetie Nov 11, 2005 15:18:16
Replying to Kammer

> prehistoric boundary markers (as oppossed to standing stones)

what's the difference between prehistoric boundary markers and standing stones? (sounds like a joke!)

do we know what function standing stones had? could they not have been boundary markers?

Cheers
Andy

B BigSweetie
BigSweetie Nov 11, 2005 15:27:06
Replying to Kammer

> More of an 'L' shape than the usual elongated thing one would expect

cf <a href="http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/site/5379">Cona Bhacain</a>

Cheers
Andy