|
carol27 wrote: We saw the outlying stone, still covered on one side with white lichen. I suppose it depends on the accuracy of the measurements. Also,how much of the tapering point of the Rudston has been eroded, in that it would have had to support said outlier, or would it be part of the original stone that has broken off? It's intriguing. It would seem to fit if the measurings accurate.
Others have spoken of a possible circle & henge surrounding the monument.
Editing, sorry....did you see the dinosaur print? I didn't. Is that just fancy?
The Thomas Allen illustration seems to show a top similar in shape to the outlier but it (the top) had already been capped with lead, “Some years ago...” according to Whitlock. So is the sequence of events 1) Capping the top to prevent further weathering to it. 2) Then removing the top (or did it naturally fall) and replacing it with a cross (which moss says may have been done). 3) Removing the cross and replacing it with a new, or the original, lead cap. All sounds a bit fanciful doesn’t it :-( Two other things are that the outlier doesn’t show (from memory) much if any weathering and we don’t know if the present cap is hollow at the top or is encasing the stone.
Confused in North Yorkshire. :-)
PS Looked for the dinosaur print but couldn't see it.
PPS Roy tells me that -
One simple way to measure height from the ground is to put a perfectly upright 3ft stake into the ground alongside said object. When the stake’s shadow on the ground is exactly 3ft, you then measure the other object’s shadow - a standing stone in your case!!
|
