Rhiannon wrote:
What am I waffling about? I'm not sure. I think it's relevant though.
'Tis.
Same thing as this?
A few weeks back, Rhiannon wrote:
I do find it interesting that local 'information' becomes completely entrenched so you wouldn't even think to question it. I was looking for mention of the stone on the internet and I think every single mention repeats the old 'where the king fell' chestnut. But when you try and think about it outside the usual that's just how it is' frame, it's only then it strikes you as being bizarre and a bit unbelievable. I guess it's like all sorts of stuff you believe as a child, when you accept information unquestioningly because of the source you hear it from - it might be years and years later when you're just about to repeat it to another adult as fact, that you finally think 'what the??' and keep quiet
I meant to mention the case of the Tyneside Holystone, which was deleted from tma due to just this kind of thing. There was a standing stone in a field, and old maps said 'Holy stone', so for years, people had been going there and acting all solsticey-paganistic-whathave-you. To the point where the farmer let it fall down, upon which it was made apparent that there was no socket hole, and on close inpsection, it was a defaced medeival cross shaft. The actual 'Holystone' was a rude boulder with a square socket hole, for early Celtic Christian pilgrims to rest their wooden crosses in. It's been buried for years, but despite this, everyone round here who knows of it still thinks the fallen cross shaft is a prehistoric standing stone ('cept me, the farmer and his dog).
