Wiltshire 25
Image by Chance

latest news, I have heard from the county archaeology people and they will apparently go and look at it some time. But she said, she didn't think it was prehistoric because there were no tool marks, it didn't look 'man made'. But surely that's not quite right? Not that I'm insisting it has to be Old or anything, but anyway.

(Also another suggestion was that it could have been moved to get out of the way of the plough.. but why would you then set it up like that?)

Rhiannon wrote:
latest news, I have heard from the county archaeology people and they will apparently go and look at it some time. But she said, she didn't think it was prehistoric because there were no tool marks, it didn't look 'man made'.
Haha, tool marks, made me laugh that did.
I wonder if she actually knows anything about prehistoric archaeology, monoliths etc. ?
Maybe she only knows about stonehenge. !

On this forum I trot out the same old stories (ad nauseam) but one comes to mind after reading your comments. The Northumberland County Archaeologist was a job-share and I had both of them in a remote field, showing them a large supine stone row. The man one says 'look a cup and ring stone'. 'Are you sure that's not just erosion', says I. A bit more investigation showed that it was indeed a cup and ring stone, fixed to the ground, in this supposed stone row. On the record the archaeologists have their names as co-finders - I am not mentioned, but the placename is wrong. The stone row they decided was the remnant of a medieval field wall, and this was despite me repairing and rebuilding walls in that parish for the previous twenty three years! (I know what a wall bottom looks like).

So this is par for the course. The field will have been laid out using that stone, with others, as boundary markers, probably. Tool marks!