Talk:Clach an Tiompain

Archaeology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Scotland Low‑importance

	Scotland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

What the hell!. What happened to the page about the Eagle Stone ? Where has all of the infomation gone ? This is rubbish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.137.109.177 (talk • contribs)

That page was merged. Most of the information on that page was nonsense, so was not incorporated (e.g. the eagle was not put there because it was Munro emblem). Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 11:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, ok, it may not have been put up by the Munros just because it has their emblem but it is in the area of their territory and the MacKenzies territory where they fought it each other on an unknown number of occasions. It is a frequent theory associated with the stone. I have not deleted any of your work just added a second paragraphy. Secondly, If the stone is pictish, which it likely is then it was probably put up in Pictish times which is between the 3rd and 10th century. The Brahan Seer lived in the 16th century. So he really has just talked about theorizing the stone as we are now in the 21st century. Its worth mentioning all of these in the article as their is no exact proof of the stones origins. However I do agree that it is most likely to be Pictish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.137.109.177 (talk • contribs)

It's not a possibility. The stone pre-dates these clans by centuries. The material isn't necessary, it's misleading and is badly spelled with bad punctuation. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 11:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]