Re: Wirral Megalithic Sites | Forum — The Modern Antiquarian

E

Evergreen Dazed Nov 19, 2017 23:46:30

Replying to thesweetcheat

**

M

moss Nov 20, 2017 09:06:05

Replying to thesweetcheat

thesweetcheat wrote:

Thanks, useful to see that context.

It's worth mentioning that the Ordnance Survey didn't employ any archaeologists until the 1920s, and "stone" on a map in non-antiquity typeface means just that, a stone. It didn't have to be standing, or have anything to indicate artificial placement. It was just a stone big enough to warrant someone noticing it. I'm sure there were guidelines about how big a stone had to be to show, but I'm also fairly certain that different surveyors/draughtsmen interpreted the guidelines slightly flexibly!

None of which is to dismiss the idea that there could have been circles, just to point out that in itself a "stone" appearing on a 19th century 6 inch map is a pretty unreliable basis for a theory without something else to support it.

Interesting, it brought to mind quite a few stones randomly recorded near to the Bitton Barrow and the river. The stones disappeared at a later date under a sewage plant but they always intrigued me.
So I shall add this lost piece of information gleaned from the map to the Bitton Barrow http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/site/5494/bitton.html, though the stones seem to have no logic, history has laid them alongside a Roman road, which would seem to prove that earlier settlements existed. Thank you for making me go back and visit an old 'theory'....

http://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/#zoom=16&lat=51.4175&lon=-2.4674&layers=6&b=1

D

david gregg Nov 21, 2017 16:24:04

Replying to thesweetcheat

Hello. Thanks. This is a valid point about stone identification. At Arrowe Park one stone still there is clearly ancient and still standing and on the old OS maps. This is used in my analysis. A second was not on the maps but clearly a dressed modern (i.e. Victorian) stone post complete with iron fittings. Four very similar dressed posts line an old forest pathway to the golf course nearby. They too were omitted from the OS maps. A third roughly shaped old stone (by its condition) but with a piece of iron attached was also recorded on the OS maps and I used it in my analysis.

I agree that given the uncertainties about the age of now missing stones other evidence is needed. That comes from pattern analysis and statistics. At Arrowe Park 8 stones forming two concentric circles is extremely improbable. At Overchurch 7 stones forming a good circle (allowing as you said for errors
-6
of +/- several feet) by chance has a probability of ~ 4 x 10.

Prof. Dave Gregg