Good Stuff Peter,
The third stone (the sedimentary recumbent one in the car-park/beer garden that looks as if it's been in a fire) is the most dubious of the three. The only claim to significance it has comes from the word of the folks who run the pub, who reckon it was the original Blue Stone. They couldn't give a date as to when it was substituted for the worn lump with the plaque. I remain sceptical, but open minded. Can't see how it's antiquity (or lack thereof) could ever be proven one way or the other :(
>a Saxon boundary stone could have been used earlier as a prehistoric standing stone
A happy thought, but again. difficult to prove either way.
 Reply | with quote | Posted by Hob
6th January 2006ce
21:29 |
Blue stone (PeterH, Jan 04, 2006, 16:11)- Re: Blue stone (fitzcoraldo, Jan 04, 2006, 16:26)
- Re: Blue stone (StoneLifter, Jan 04, 2006, 17:42)
- Re: Blue stone (goffik, Jan 04, 2006, 18:17)
- Re: Blue stone (Hob, Jan 04, 2006, 21:18)
|
|
Head To Head 
Re: Blue stone (PeterH)