But I don't understaaand (she whined). I can understand that large standing stones might have been picked for their subtle similarity to other things (though I don't know if I generally believe it. But maybe.)
But you saying that any <i>small</i> stone at Stanton Drew like the one here
http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/post/44461
has got similarities other than coincidental ones?
I don't really understand what you're trying to do, but if you want to explain...
Reply | with quote | Posted by Rhiannon 1st March 2006ce 16:07 |
|