Featured Title:
Free book with orders of £10 or over in our shop |
 |
| Roman Britain |
 |
| Login |
|
Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like your own home page, fewer ads, and your contributions link to your page. |
| Who's Online |
There are currently, 114 guests and 0 members online.
You are a guest. To join in, please register for free by clicking here |
| |
Moderated by : Andy B , TimPrevett , coldrum , Klingon , MickM , TheCaptain , bat400 , davidmorgan , Runemage , SolarMegalith , sem
The Megalithic Portal and Megalith Map : Index >>
Stones Forum >> Standing stones, BAR 558
|
 |
| Author |
Standing stones, BAR 558 |
JohnLindsay
Joined:
28-02-2012
Messages: 116
from London
 OFF-Line
|  Posted 26-01-2013 at 14:24
Standing stones is the title of a new BAR report, 558. I doin't know enough about the literature to write a review, but there seems to be an ontological matter of when a standing stone which has fallen over is no longer or ever was a standing stone.
My understanding of a megalith portal ontology is that stones have to be in pairs at least, so a single fallen stone, perhaps then re-erected, is another matter?
So the King's Stone, Kingston Upon Thames isn't in the BAR report.
This ontological matter I then turn into a methodological one, for searching google on Wishmoor Stone produced some interesting photographs which I linked my Facebook page. Now what got me going on wishmoor, was that a writer referred to a stone while the OS map refers to Wishmoor Cross. The methodological thing gets me away from the stone, to the Devil's Highway, the Roman road, the county boundary between Surrey and Berkshire (as it was) and I think one may say something about this assemblage of evidence which one may not say about one stone. This is a benefit of knowledge matter.
 Profile
 Reply
|
JohnLindsay
Joined:
28-02-2012
Messages: 116
from London
OFF-Line
| Posted 28-01-2013 at 17:52
This BAR 558 has be reviewed in British Archaeology by Mike Pitt, who is one of the people commented upon in the report, so circular reporting.
But I want to return to the standing stone matter and method, for I went to look at the Yateley stone from the flickr picture, which didn't tell me where it was, apart from Yateley. The library didn't know of it, and now we reach a #PRADSA matter, which I have explained before, neither did local experts. The library people, doing some searching, found another picture which did show where it is. But during these conversations a passing library user mentioned that there was another one in a garden, on which followed a long discussion about how close it came to being moved into her garden. We agreed it might be a garden ornament. However, she gave me the address. I looked on an old OS map, and we have Cricket Hill. Now crich is a word meaning hill and often confused with church. On the map was also Holy Well. The church is not on the hill, we have come across this before. So if we have a sarsen built in the wall of a church (not incidently just in the wall, but by the north door, or sinister, or left if you are facing the altar, or the Devil's Door) and a sarsen on the crich where the church is not, are we on the path of theory, or nuttiness?
Profile
Reply
|
JohnLindsay
Joined:
28-02-2012
Messages: 116
from London
OFF-Line
| Posted 29-01-2013 at 12:09
This case has now become more complicated for using google search and a variety of sources, plus the newsletter of the Yateley Society I have come across the urnfield and its literature. Now urnfields are not part of Megalith interest matter, but there might be some combination of time and place.
Profile
Reply
|
Andy B
Joined:
13-02-2001
Messages: 7007
from Surrey, UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 29-01-2013 at 16:19
BAR 558 2012: A Gazetteer of Prehistoric Standing Stones in Great Britain by Olaf Swarbrick. ISBN 9781407309606. £25.00. iv+101 pages;
http://www.archaeopress.com/ArchaeopressShop/Public/defaultAll.asp?QuickSearch=A+Gazetteer+of+Prehistoric+Standing+Stones
>I don't know enough about the literature to write a review,
That doesn't stop the rest of us  I would like us to do a review of it - have you seen the report?
> there seems to be an ontological matter of when a standing stone which has fallen over is no longer or ever was a standing stone.
I would say yes it is and that's an omission.
Here's a link to a report of a recently discovered standing stone on Herm. That is not strictly 'standing' any more
http://www.megalithic.co.uk/article.php?sid=22341#49135
> So the King's Stone, Kingston Upon Thames isn't in the BAR report.
I would say that's an omission but then we here have a slightly wider view of what's a standing stone and what isn't. You can't go by excavation for all of them.
>This BAR 558 has been reviewed in British Archaeology by Mike Pitts, who is one of the people commented upon in the report, so circular reporting.
Mike Pitts is also Olaf Swarbrick's nephew but wasn't involved in the publication of the report as I understand it. Sadly Olaf Swarbrick is no longer with us but you may remember him for the theory that the Uffington white horse was more like a wolf hound than a horse.
http://mikepitts.wordpress.com/2010/10/13/you-can%E2%80%99t-keep-an-old-dog-down/
Could you post all the info you have on the Yately stone including the flickr image, one of us may recognise where it is. Do you have a suspected location now?
I might be able to get over there with you for a search sometime.
Urnfields (as in collections of urn burials?) are of interest to us as with other (Bronze Age?) sites.
Cheers
P.S. note to the Mysteirans as to how I do my quoting manually with > so as to avoid 'death by endless quotations'
[ This message was edited by: Andy B on 2013-01-29 16:25 ]
Profile
 Email
Reply
| |
|
|
|
|
|
IMPORTANT NOTES: This site uses COOKIES. Please do not use this web site if you do not agree to our Terms and Conditions of use.
If you plan to visit ancient sites in person, please make sure you follow our Charter.
Articles, photographs and comments are the property of their respective authors or contributors, please contact them for permission to reproduce. Site design ©1997-2012 Andy Burnham.
|
Main News