Forums | Re: Its the Pitts | The Modern Antiquarian.com

Home	Latest Posts	Forums	Maps	Help

Browse Sites	News	Blog	Contributors	The Books

Head To Head

The Modern Antiquarian

Avebury Forum

Start a topic | Search

Avebury

Re: Its the Pitts

103 messages

Select a forum:

Well the Beckhampton excavation took no time to expose the stones, and the Cove got sorted very quickly once they started. It's the talking that takes the time.

Leaving the site "as is" is a perfectly valid option, but not doing so is equally valid. Should the decision rest with NT? And if so, why?

If Mike Pitts is given permission to raise a recumbent stone I don't see why they can say recumbent buried ones are in some way totally different.

Reply | with quote

Posted by nigelswift
3rd December 2003ce
19:10

(Rhiannon, Dec 02, 2003, 17:52)

Re: new stones found (Pete G, Dec 02, 2003, 20:23)
from today's Independent (grrr, Dec 03, 2003, 11:47)
- Re: from today's Independent (pebblesfromheaven, Dec 03, 2003, 11:49)
  - Re: from today's Independent (suave harv, Dec 03, 2003, 13:54)
    - Re: from today's Independent (suave harv, Dec 03, 2003, 13:55)
      - Re: from today's Independent (Pete G, Dec 03, 2003, 13:59)
        Re: from today's Independent (suave harv, Dec 03, 2003, 15:10)
        Re: from today's Independent (Pete G, Dec 03, 2003, 15:24)
        Re: from today's Independent (suave harv, Dec 03, 2003, 15:40)
        Re: from today's Independent (nigelswift, Dec 03, 2003, 16:48)
        Re: from today's Independent (Pete G, Dec 03, 2003, 16:55)
        Re: from today's Independent [sos] (megalith6, Jun 26, 2004, 10:31)
BBC article (Killer, Dec 03, 2003, 14:07)
BBC article (Killer, Dec 03, 2003, 14:07)
Re: new stones found (Kammer, Dec 03, 2003, 14:10)
- Re: new stones found (Rhiannon, Dec 03, 2003, 17:04)
  - Re: new stones found (Pete G, Dec 03, 2003, 17:11)
    - Re: new stones found (GordonP, Dec 03, 2003, 17:22)
      - Re: new stones found (Pete G, Dec 03, 2003, 17:27)
        Re: new stones found (Vybik Jon, Dec 03, 2003, 18:03)
    - Re: new stones found (Kammer, Dec 04, 2003, 13:29)
      - Re: new stones found (Steve Gray, Dec 04, 2003, 14:39)
        Dildonics (FourWinds, Dec 04, 2003, 14:45)
      - Quake (Pete G, Dec 04, 2003, 15:33)
        Re: Quake (Kammer, Dec 05, 2003, 09:25)
        Re: Quake (Chris Collyer, Dec 05, 2003, 09:41)
        Re: Quake (Steve Gray, Dec 05, 2003, 11:56)
        Re: Quake (Pete G, Dec 05, 2003, 12:17)
Its the Pitts (Pete G, Dec 03, 2003, 18:47)
- Re: Its the Pitts (baza, Dec 03, 2003, 18:54)
  - Re: Its the Pitts (suave harv, Dec 03, 2003, 18:59)
    - Re: Its the Pitts (nigelswift, Dec 03, 2003, 19:10)
      - Re: Its the Pitts (baza, Dec 03, 2003, 19:31)
        Re: Its the Pitts (nigelswift, Dec 03, 2003, 20:29)
      - Re: Its the Pitts (Pete G, Dec 03, 2003, 23:24)
        Re: Its the Pitts (neighbourofthedrude, Dec 04, 2003, 14:41)
        Re: Its the Pitts (Pete G, Dec 04, 2003, 15:29)
Re: new stones found (gm, Dec 03, 2003, 19:47)
- Re: new stones found (Moth, Dec 03, 2003, 20:40)
  - Re: new stones found (pebblesfromheaven, Dec 03, 2003, 22:33)
    - New 'low profile' Moth (Moth, Dec 04, 2003, 01:47)
      - Re: New 'low profile' Moth (nigelswift, Dec 04, 2003, 09:09)
        Re: New 'low profile' Moth (BlueGloves, Dec 04, 2003, 09:24)
        Re: New 'low profile' Moth (FourWinds, Dec 04, 2003, 10:14)
        Re: New 'low profile' Moth (nigelswift, Dec 04, 2003, 10:31)
        Re: New 'low profile' Moth (Rhiannon, Dec 04, 2003, 10:53)
        Re: New 'low profile' Moth (FourWinds, Dec 04, 2003, 11:03)
        Re: New 'low profile' Moth (nigelswift, Dec 04, 2003, 11:25)
        why buried? (Joanna, Dec 04, 2003, 12:16)
        Re: why buried? (FourWinds, Dec 04, 2003, 12:22)
        Re: why buried? (Rhiannon, Dec 04, 2003, 12:25)
        Re: why buried? (Pete G, Dec 04, 2003, 12:24)
        Re: why buried? (Rhiannon, Dec 04, 2003, 12:29)
        Re: why buried? (Pete G, Dec 04, 2003, 12:34)
        Re: why buried? (Rhiannon, Dec 04, 2003, 12:39)
        Re: why buried? (FourWinds, Dec 04, 2003, 13:14)
        Re: why buried? (Pete G, Dec 04, 2003, 13:19)
        Re: why buried? (FourWinds, Dec 04, 2003, 13:30)
        Re: why buried? (Pete G, Dec 04, 2003, 13:40)
        Re: why buried? (Kozmik_Ken, Dec 04, 2003, 14:28)
        Re: why buried? (Pete G, Dec 04, 2003, 15:27)
        Re: why buried? (Kozmik_Ken, Dec 04, 2003, 15:45)
        Re: why buried? (Joanna, Dec 04, 2003, 15:46)
        Re: why buried? (Pete G, Dec 04, 2003, 15:50)
        Oops (Pete G, Dec 04, 2003, 15:57)
        Re: why buried? (nigelswift, Dec 04, 2003, 13:42)
        Re: why buried? (megalith6, Jun 21, 2004, 00:03)
        Re: New 'low profile' Moth (Rhiannon, Dec 04, 2003, 12:21)
        Re: New 'low profile' Moth (BlueGloves, Dec 04, 2003, 12:40)
        Re: putting them back up (Rhiannon, Dec 04, 2003, 12:50)
        Re: putting them back up (suave harv, Dec 04, 2003, 16:55)
        Re: putting them back up (GordonP, Dec 04, 2003, 17:54)
        Re: putting them back up (nigelswift, Dec 04, 2003, 18:40)
        What - like this ? (BlueGloves, Dec 05, 2003, 08:01)
        Re: putting them back up (BlueGloves, Dec 05, 2003, 07:55)
        Re: putting them back up (nigelswift, Dec 05, 2003, 08:36)
        Re: putting them back up (FourWinds, Dec 05, 2003, 08:43)
        Re: putting them back up (nigelswift, Dec 05, 2003, 08:57)
        Also... (nigelswift, Dec 05, 2003, 09:06)
        And (BlueGloves, Dec 06, 2003, 10:17)
        Re: And (nigelswift, Dec 06, 2003, 11:32)
        Re: And (BlueGloves, Dec 06, 2003, 13:33)
        Re: putting them back up (megalith6, Jun 20, 2004, 23:45)
        Re: putting them back up (FourWinds, Jun 21, 2004, 07:16)
        Re: putting them back up (FourWinds, Jun 21, 2004, 07:31)
        Re: putting them back up (megalith6, Jun 26, 2004, 00:32)
        Re: putting them back up (nigelswift, Jun 21, 2004, 08:07)
        Re: putting them back up (rocknicker, Jun 21, 2004, 09:19)
        Re: putting them back up (doktoratomik, Jun 21, 2004, 12:00)
        Re: putting them back up (nigelswift, Jun 21, 2004, 13:10)
        Re: putting them back up (VenerableBottyBurp, Jun 21, 2004, 14:11)
        Re: putting them back up (VenerableBottyBurp, Jun 21, 2004, 14:12)
        Re: putting them back up (nigelswift, Jun 21, 2004, 15:13)
        Re: putting them back up (StoneLifter, Jun 21, 2004, 21:52)
        Re: putting them back up (megalith6, Jul 01, 2004, 23:14)
        Re: putting them back up (megalith6, Jul 01, 2004, 23:13)
        Re: putting them back up (nigelswift, Jul 02, 2004, 05:35)
        Re: putting them back up (Pete G, Jul 02, 2004, 12:14)
        Re: putting them back up (megalith6, Jun 26, 2004, 00:08)
        Re: putting them back up (megalith6, Jul 04, 2004, 01:56)
        Re: putting them back up (nigelswift, Jul 04, 2004, 06:51)
        Re: putting them back up (Littlestone, Jul 04, 2004, 22:23)

Terms & Conditions | Home | Julian Cope presents Head Heritage

Top of page

In reply to:

2 replies:

Messages in this topic: