megadread
|
"Little" standing stones. ?
Feb 28, 2011, 17:38
|
I know of quite a few lowly standing stones, some only maybe 20cm high, but in prominent positions, and close by to other known megalithic sites.
What i'm wondering, when does a standing stone become a standing stone, is there a height "barrier" for want of a better word. ?
These are not just earthfast boulders, some of them wouldn't go amiss in some of the Derbyshire circles, Barbrook 3 for instance.
Is there a cut off point for adding these little monoliths to TMA. ?
Opinions anyone.
|
postman
|
Re: "Little" standing stones. ?
Feb 28, 2011, 17:47
|
No cut off point for me matey.
If it's a standing stone add away, size doesnt matter so I'm told, only how you use it.
They are perplexing these tiny menhirs arent they ?
|
megadread
|
Re: "Little" standing stones. ?
Feb 28, 2011, 18:15
|
Cheers Postman.
Here's one of the little buggers, this one is by the surprise view.
http://i55.tinypic.com/2lvfgr6.jpg
|
juamei
|
Re: "Little" standing stones. ?
Feb 28, 2011, 18:43
|
|
megadread wrote:
Location, provenance, colouring, probability of natural placing, an easterly wind...
Anyone claiming size matters, take a look at Exmoor. Only a handful bigger than a metre across the whole moor and tens of settings all with stones barely 50cm high.
In short, no idea, but if we counted all the stones there must be out there that aren't currently considered, we'd double the number of sites on TMA.
|
faerygirl
|
Re: "Little" standing stones. ?
Feb 28, 2011, 19:33
|
|
I would say that if they are near something else then it might be worth knowing about. However, as I live in Wolverhampton, EVERYTHING that is worth seeing involves one hell of a drive. If I'm driving for 3 hours to see something but when I get there its only 20cm tall, I'm not gonna be a happy lass. SO yes, post them, but PLEEEEEESE no trick photography to make a 20cm pebble look like a meter high monster!
|
wideford
|
Re: "Little" standing stones. ?
Feb 28, 2011, 20:37
|
|
seen height or actual height, depending on the setting you may be looking at virtually the whole thing or the top of summat buried in metres of peat or bog (some stones gradually disappear under the material against them and others are slowly eroding out [though there are those that have visibly 'grown' even since the 19th century] )
|
megadread
|
Re: "Little" standing stones. ?
Feb 28, 2011, 20:52
|
|
wideford wrote: seen height or actual height, depending on the setting you may be looking at virtually the whole thing or the top of summat buried in metres of peat or bog (some stones gradually disappear under the material against them and others are slowly eroding out [though there are those that have visibly 'grown' even since the 19th century] )
Ah, the Callanish effect. !
These ones are truly tiny, i doubt there's much below the ground to be honest.
|
thesweetcheat
|
Re: "Little" standing stones. ?
Feb 28, 2011, 20:56
|
|
juamei wrote: Anyone claiming size matters, take a look at Exmoor. Only a handful bigger than a metre across the whole moor and tens of settings all with stones barely 50cm high.
Same with the stones in the stone circles around Y Mynydd Du, but then there's some whopping mehirs there too!
|
