Re: Calling Jo-anne | Forum — The Modern Antiquarian

The Great Circle, North East Circle & Avenues 2

Image by morfe

Calling Jo-anne

more_vert

Rhiannon Mar 1, 2006 16:07:16

Replying to Moth

But I don't understaaand (she whined). I can understand that large standing stones might have been picked for their subtle similarity to other things (though I don't know if I generally believe it. But maybe.)

But you saying that any <i>small</i> stone at Stanton Drew like the one here
http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/post/44461
has got similarities other than coincidental ones?

I don't really understand what you're trying to do, but if you want to explain...

Jo-anne Mar 1, 2006 16:35:20

Replying to Rhiannon

"has got similarities other than coincidental ones?"

Hi Rhiannon,

The small stone is from (+/- 300 microliths) the excavation that we're doing in the Netherlands. These have proven invaluable to the consistancy and learning how the stones interact. The megaliths 'do' the same. The images are a different subject to the measurements, but they come together in a simular style, this large Stanton Drew stone shows simularities with the Wheeler Elite Stone and The Cove Elite stone, all three have elaborate headdresses. I'm not sure if this latest face is the representative, though I have done next to nothing with the colour inside the silhouette/markings.

The 100% simularities are in the touching points to a set measurement grid that is very close to the metric system - 2 cubit units = 1.1cm.
This doesn't mean that all stone do it but most in all size and shape.
There are inconsistancies, but more as in, there are 2 types of 'underneath' flat or peg, just when one has established that, one finds 20/30% don't abide to this rule, not making things easier and all the features do this.
The measurements are the most consistant.

Jo-anne Mar 1, 2006 17:21:31

Replying to Rhiannon

Any small stone anywhere proberly, though one stone out of context is near to not identifiable anymore as lots cross over to nature with near to no recognising.
Example = one cluster of 4, same shine, stonetype, size. One provable, one measurement with a story and one usable, and the forth looks like nothing, I know it belongs because of the other 3.

I have about 5 to 10 small stones ornament style like the large stones, that are provable by the summier modification marks that are known; square, 2 ways of flaking, crushing, sanding/rub, last shine/different grades.

I did find one small stone once long ago in Germany/Duren. But that got lost. I remember it for it's squareness and a lady like head to it. This shows the international character to a same style, though it's just a memory and can't be proven.

What can be proven is the simularities of the small stones to the large stones, and that proberly the small stones are the ornaments that people would have had in their living or pockets. The small stones are hand stones or positioning stones with a few peg exceptions.

As the site we're excavating has the stones together, alot of a picture emerges, 7 square meters over 5 years.
Clusters of the same stone type, earth colourings, etc.