Here is a find from this morning, the remains of a stone mound that I think probably dates from 1871.
This one was tough because the mound had been scattered at bit. The cobbles were larger than the average one would find on the surface, there were enough of them lying within about three feet to build a decent mound, and both the size and concentration of the stones was unusual and looked artificial. The stones were also well embedded, which is an indicator of some age in a setting like that.
It wasn't until we had located some other evidence, though, that I decided to go back for a second look at what had registered only as a "maybe" the first pass through. On the second trip, the rest of the pattern had firmed up to the point that the "maybe" had become a "probably". So I set a rod and cap in my best estimate of where the center of the mound had been and tied it in.
Looks good!
Would you consider also piling the stones back up around your disk?
> Would you consider also piling the stones back up around your disk?
I might in rare cases, but this isn't one of them. The state of the mark is one of the evidences of its age that rebuilding erases. What you end up with when you rebuild a stone mound is typically something that looks as if it was built yesterday.