"Chris B" <nom### [at] nomailcom> wrote:
> Ah! Well I think it's difficult to be sure how well the stones were
> originally finished.
>
> They were knocked about a good bit when tipped over and there's no certainty
> that the reconstructions from the early part of the last century even got
> the stones in the right place, let alone the right way round.

Well, stones tipping over have a tendency to leave their "foot end" at about the
same place where it originally stood, right?

So if half of the toppled stones' ends form a distinct shape, chances are that's
where they originally stood, so this is a way to identify which end of each
stone is the "foot end".

Now given that the stones are significantly wider than deep, most will have
toppled without turning.

Thus, if some stones lay outward from the suspected placement, chances are their
outer side ended up down in the ground. And if they lay inward instead, chances
are their inner side ended up buried.

So, if the stones tipped over outward show a better finish on the upper side,
while the stones tipped over inward show a better finish on the lower side,
this would be a clear indication how they were originally finished, as it rules
out any later manipulation as the cause of the differences in finish.

Post a reply to this message