At all times in the church anaology there is a very ordered architecture from the lane -lych gate - narrow path – porch - aisle -chancel . This analogy holds up in certain prehistoric monumental settings e.g. stone rows that lead to stone circle /cairn . Avenue , sometimes defined by standing stones , leading to stone circle , cursus connecting earlier burials , The area in front of a passage tomb (defined by the horns of a court cairn -passage – chamber(s) ,Maltese temples with libation holes at thresholds etc In all examples there is a case for the architecture ordering any participants in a possible ritual associated with the monuments this is achieved by structured spaces , all retrievable archaeologically . Can the same be said about a solitary standing stone 2.5 km away from the nearest monument , and do we have any precedents ? two stones would at least almost halve the potential for setting off at oblique angles .The ordering impact must be inversely proportional to the distance from the nearest monument and if it is unsighted the ordering is even less .
Processing at some monuments is a reasonable hypothesis but for the single or even stone pair ?
Hi George (tiompan),
You may be mixing up the 'Georges' here as I was asking GN the question regarding the possible ley line connection with the type of marker stone he was referring to. Were you replying to my post or GH's as I'm a little confused (no change there then!!)
Sorry for the confusion S ,I realised you were asking GN the question that's why I didn't use the quote .Your post made me think that I should add a bit more detail to an earlier short comment .