@ "The Heritage Trust"

close
more_vert
Evergreen Dazed E
Evergreen Dazed Jan 29, 2014 13:35:45
Replying to thesweetcheat

thesweetcheat wrote:
Balance of probability, the stone at Stoney Littleton was more likely than not chosen because it had a whopping great big ammonite it it. Even if it was "chosen" for this reason, once it had been chosen, it was placed in the structure in such a way as to show the ammonite off, right by the entrance. True that we don't categorically "know" it was deliberately chosen, but seems far more likely than not, doesn't it? You can't exactly fail to notice it and neither could the builders.

As Rhiannon says, far more ridiculous assertions than that get passed off as fact in the wonderful world of megalithic ponderings!

I wonder, was that stone in place when the nice gentlemen from the Ministry of Works reconstructed the barrow?
If not, theres always a chance it wasn't meant to be seen from the outside at all.

Anybody got notes on the excavation/reconstruction? Would be interesting to know.

T tiompan
tiompan Jan 29, 2014 14:18:58
Replying to Evergreen Dazed

Evergreen Dazed wrote:
thesweetcheat wrote:
Balance of probability, the stone at Stoney Littleton was more likely than not chosen because it had a whopping great big ammonite it it. Even if it was "chosen" for this reason, once it had been chosen, it was placed in the structure in such a way as to show the ammonite off, right by the entrance. True that we don't categorically "know" it was deliberately chosen, but seems far more likely than not, doesn't it? You can't exactly fail to notice it and neither could the builders.

As Rhiannon says, far more ridiculous assertions than that get passed off as fact in the wonderful world of megalithic ponderings!

I wonder, was that stone in place when the nice gentlemen from the Ministry of Works reconstructed the barrow?
If not, theres always a chance it wasn't meant to be seen from the outside at all.

Anybody got notes on the excavation/reconstruction? Would be interesting to know.

It doesn't appear that it would have been that obvious when first investigated in 1760 or the site even recognised as a barrow /monument .
Sealed passage tombs /cists /tombs often have obvious visual components that might not be expected to have been seen by another living person , so even if it had been hidden shouldn't be held against it .
Fwiw ,I think it's a reasonable suggestion in the Stoney Littleton case ,although repetition doesn't make it any more likley . The Cove example is like many others e.g. Clava , Callanish and lots of other megliths , it may have been chosen for that feature we have noticed ,maybe not .
A bit of Emmanuel Men's type research on how the various stones may have been quarried might clarify some of the choices i.e. if it can be shown that the feature was not visible when quarried then that would make it an unlikely choice due to the hidden feature .

T thesweetcheat
thesweetcheat Jan 29, 2014 17:42:07
Replying to Evergreen Dazed

Evergreen Dazed wrote:
I wonder, was that stone in place when the nice gentlemen from the Ministry of Works reconstructed the barrow?
If not, theres always a chance it wasn't meant to be seen from the outside at all.
Yep, fair question, which never even occurred to me :)

H harestonesdown
harestonesdown Jan 30, 2014 01:48:07
Replying to Evergreen Dazed

Evergreen Dazed wrote:
thesweetcheat wrote:
Balance of probability, the stone at Stoney Littleton was more likely than not chosen because it had a whopping great big ammonite it it. Even if it was "chosen" for this reason, once it had been chosen, it was placed in the structure in such a way as to show the ammonite off, right by the entrance. True that we don't categorically "know" it was deliberately chosen, but seems far more likely than not, doesn't it? You can't exactly fail to notice it and neither could the builders.

As Rhiannon says, far more ridiculous assertions than that get passed off as fact in the wonderful world of megalithic ponderings!

I wonder, was that stone in place when the nice gentlemen from the Ministry of Works reconstructed the barrow?
If not, theres always a chance it wasn't meant to be seen from the outside at all.

Anybody got notes on the excavation/reconstruction? Would be interesting to know.

:)