fitzcoraldo wrote:
for example, to me, this is just a river worn stone
http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/post/56543/glendasan_river.html
If it classed as a bullaun then I can you give dozens and dozens of examples.
Actually Fitz, that's a particularly rotten shot of that stone. If you saw it in situ you'd see that the 'bullaun' was most definitely carved/worked. On the day we were there it looked to me very much like a baptismal font so it maybe proves your point, but in a different way than you intended. It's unique in that respect in comparison to the rest of the 25 or so bullauns at Glendalough except maybe this http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/post/53877/images/brockagh.html http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/post/56543/glendasan_river.html
If it classed as a bullaun then I can you give dozens and dozens of examples.
cheers
fitz
or this http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/post/53866/images/deer_stone.html
On the broader front, a disputed antiquity label wouldn't bother me on bullauns, but you'd have to label them all that way given that there is no proof that any of them are ancient.