Re: Is this really a standing stone? | Forum

wolfnighthunter Mar 1, 2006 20:07:11

Replying to Hob

I think we need to set rules for what is added to the site.For example what is a standing stone?...a stone erected by prehistoric man a long long time ago?..or an old stone erected by someone a hundred years or less ago..both stones are ancient, (most stone is)..so we need to be able to prove that a standing stone was erected by ancient man, this proof must come in the form of the associated finds within the area around the stone, we need to use every resource we can to track the history of the stone. These ideas must also work for anything we add to the site.

StoneLifter Mar 1, 2006 20:41:15

Replying to wolfnighthunter

There's something going on with the Popping stones. If you take a look at one of the pictures of the group together, looking upstream, then it's clear that the two lower rocks in front have been set into that position. This rock appears to have eroded microcups - http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/post/38478 - and we know this area was well populated in those times. There's plenty of monuments around Haltwhistle, a couple of miles to the east. Compare the 'demeanour' of these rocks with those of the circle on Haughton Common - http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/post/38478

But enough of this ! There's some Rock Art listed as being at Tortie, which is in this general vicinity. What is it ?

Kammer Mar 1, 2006 20:44:52

Replying to wolfnighthunter

> I think we need to set rules for what is added to the site.
> For example what is a standing stone?

From the submission guidelines...

"The Modern Antiquarian focuses on megalithic sites and the ancient (i.e. prehistoric) landscape. This means we are not interested in Roman sites, Dark Ages sites, churches etc. unless they have clear prehistoric provenances (and you are prepared to tell us about them)."

"Wherever possible, back up your assertions and supply references for your quotations."

That says it as far as I'm concerned.

K x