The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Which is the longest/largest recumbent stone in the UK? |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
Topic View: Flat | Threaded |
thesweetcheat 6216 posts |
Feb 17, 2017, 20:17
|
||
nigelswift wrote: Evergreen Dazed wrote: If that is the case how about the lintel Stonehenge 156? I demand a new classification. Recently recumbent. In which case it wins. Now you'll have to agree a definition of "recently" with everyone.
|
|||
thesweetcheat 6216 posts |
Feb 17, 2017, 20:19
|
||
Presumably this was originally non-recumbent though? Are we including fallen as well as intentionally recumbent?
|
|||
spencer 3071 posts |
Feb 17, 2017, 22:13
|
||
Is it fully exposed? Not seen.
|
|||
spencer 3071 posts |
Feb 17, 2017, 22:19
|
||
I'm recently recumbent. Been to the pub
|
|||
Littlestone 5386 posts |
Edited Feb 18, 2017, 10:42
Feb 18, 2017, 10:37
|
||
thesweetcheat wrote: Presumably this was originally non-recumbent though? Are we including fallen as well as intentionally recumbent? From the Wiki entry on the Er Grah megalith here - “It is not known what caused the menhir to topple and break into the four pieces that are now seen. At one time it was believed that the stone had never stood upright, but archaeological findings have proven that it did. The most popular theory is that the stone was deliberately pulled down and broken. Certainly other menhirs that accompanied it were removed and reused in the construction of tombs and dolmens nearby. However, in recent years, some archaeologists have favoured the explanation of an earthquake or tremor, and this theory is supported by a computer model.”
|
|||
spencer 3071 posts |
Feb 25, 2017, 11:42
|
||
Thanks folks for the info. Looks like Old Keig has it for north of the border, then. Still needing info for elsewhere. Totally innocent question, you understand, just asking...
|
Pages: 3 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index |