Q?

close
more_vert
nigelswift N
nigelswift Mar 16, 2007 21:14:27
Replying to Pete G

its a stonemasons mark

My point was that it might be made by someone intending to take it away, in the same way as might be the case with the Berwick one.

I found this account of it -
http://www.sacred-texts.com/gno/gar/gar57.htm#fr_229
"Dr. Thurman has hunted up three credible witnesses ready to make affidavit that they saw with their own eyes a certain stranger cut the sigil."

"A certain stranger" is presumably a mason but there's no certainty from that account it was his mark rather than the mark of the person he was working for. Worth considering, anyway - particularly as "the sigil" presumably definitely means a sickle and that seems to be a bit of info Atkinson was missing.

The Hungerford emblem was definitely a sickle (their graves in Salisbury Cathedral have them). So I'm wondering if it's at all possible the Hungerfords sent their tame mason to nick some stones.

I've only found a tenuous bit of evidence but an intriguing bit. The Hungerfords were somewhat related to another prominent family in the area, the De La Meres who, in the 14th century held the manors of both Berwick St James AND Steeple Lavington. Bearing in mind the stones were said to have been removed to both St James and The Lavingtons....

P Pete G
Pete G Mar 16, 2007 21:32:48
Replying to nigelswift

Well the stone in question is the fallen lintel of the back trilathon and it is huge.
There are much smaller stones that would be far easier to break up and/or take away.

S slumpystones
slumpystones Mar 16, 2007 22:30:43
Replying to nigelswift

nigelswift wrote:
My point was that it might be made by someone intending to take it away
When there is chalk everywhere? Why spend half a day making a precise mark to lay claim to a particular stone when a scratched "gette yore handes offe" would work just as well.