They were buried to make more room for crops.
The Xtian-Pagan nonsense the NT has been trotting out for the TV is bollux. There is no evidence at all. In fact Brian Edwards argues that is was the Five Milers who destroyed the stones to annoy the Church!
One stone buried on the Beckhampton Ave was found in 1999 and it had a piece of bone and some flowers in one of the holes. Could be this stone was buried ritualisticly possibly to protect it from the stone burners.
NT don't want the newly discovered stones re-erected. More visiters they can't cope with.
A nice 3D model that you have to pay to see will do the job for them (any excuse to waste shit loads of cash they don't have of new technology!)
PeteG
Reply | with quote | Posted by Pete G 4th December 2003ce 12:24 |
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)
- 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)
- Its the Pitts (Pete G, Dec 03, 2003, 18:47)
- 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? (Pete G, Dec 04, 2003, 12:24)
- 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 (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)
|
|