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

The Modern Antiquarian

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:

".... all of the stones that have been excavated in recent years have been re-buried..."
Agreed. But why?
It implies that a "datum" state of repair has been selected as being the most appropriate, i.e. the state created by the zealots. In which case, to be consistent across the whole site, we should push down the re-erected stones, which is ridiculous.
To my mind, we should leave them all lying down, like the Christians left them or raise them all up like the builders left them, but not try to pick and choose different aims for different stones.

Reply | with quote

Posted by nigelswift
3rd December 2003ce
20:29

In reply to:

Re: Its the Pitts (baza)

Messages in this topic:

new stones found

(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