|
 Log in |
Register
|
|
 Head To Head The Modern Antiquarian Holywell Forum | Start a topic | Search |
46 messages | Select a forum: |
| We may not know the primary purpose of Silbury Hill or Stonehenge, however, we do know they were constructed by prehistoric people. We have the evidence. This site (TMA) is exclusively concerned with the human prehistory of the British Isles (that's right, isn't it?) and there are clear guidelines as to what should be added - and what should not. I just happen to agree with the guidelines. Of course, water and its sources was of great significance to prehistoric man, as it always has been and probably always will be. If there is evidence of a site being used in prehistory - whatever the site may be - then I presume that that site should appear here. If you can come up with a strong case for adding a site here, even without clear evidence, then you should set out your argument. I've put a photo of a waterfall on here: http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/post/16964 because I believe it to be of significance to the siting of the cairn under which's name I've put the photo. From time to time people appear on here suggesting that other types of site should be incorporated. I can recall Roman, Egyptian and holy wells being mentioned. I like the purity of TMA. I see it (TMA) as the undisputed, best website solely concerned with the evidence of human prehistory in the British Isles and hope that it continues as such. The Megalithic Portal accepts holy wells and crosses up to the Norman Conquest and in my eyes has become diminished by doing so, although I still visit and contribute: prehistoric sites. I'm just another user of this site and am only setting out the facts as I see them. If I'm wrong then I'll happily be corrected. :o) Baz Reply | with quote |  12th October 2004ce 23:06 In reply to: Re: Not my hero (goffik) |
Messages in this topic: |
|