Sorry - I was joking about the buildings and there really is no room for irony in web text. From Pete's screensaver - which is virtually all I know of Avebury - there seems to be a ropey WI hut (surely that could go!)
There are no doubts as to how the stones were set, it's just that that method no longer fulfils safety laws. When a big stone starts moving it doesn't take any prisoners. Ie the squashed barber.
It now 'seems' as though there were four stone rows in Smithills, Bolton. One each for the stations of the 18.6 year lunar calendrical cycle. I'll eventually persuade the good burghers to be allowed put some of the stones back up. If we estimate that learning process at about ten years and allow the same period of time for the Avebury paperwork to 'come through' then we have the beginning of a plan.
A more radical approach would include replacing the stones that have been destroyed, as well. Holymire, contemporary with Avebury, has some suitable big rocks, there are plenty of other piles of big stones where circles have been broken too far for restoration. Might as well use them for spares.
 Reply | with quote | Posted by BlueGloves
5th December 2003ce
07:55 |
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 (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)
|
|
Head To Head 
Re: putting them back up (Rhiannon)