If Silbaby is to be added to TMA as a site it needs to be made 100% clear that it isn't yet widely recognised as ancient. Also, the grounds for including it should be made clear (not an essay or anything, just something simple).
Perhaps Pete could do this and write a short 'Misc' post about the mound. The site category can't really be set as 'artificial mound' until we are sure it is artificial. Until then it should remain uncategorised.
TMA Ed
 Reply | with quote | Posted by TMA Ed
23rd November 2004ce
11:55 |
Silbaby -a plea. (nigelswift, Nov 23, 2004, 08:25)- Re: Silbaby -a plea. (jimit, Nov 23, 2004, 08:29)
- Re: Silbaby -a plea. (Jane, Nov 23, 2004, 09:08)
- Re: Silbaby -a plea. (StoneLifter, Nov 23, 2004, 09:16)
- Re: Silbaby -a plea. (smallblueplanet, Nov 23, 2004, 09:42)
- Re: Silbaby -a plea. (Rhiannon, Nov 23, 2004, 10:02)
- Re: Silbaby -a plea. (jimit, Nov 23, 2004, 16:24)
- Silbaby - a suggestion. (Kammer, Nov 23, 2004, 17:16)
- More evidence? (ocifant, Nov 23, 2004, 20:55)
- West Kennett enclosures (Rhiannon, Nov 25, 2004, 13:57)
- Re: Silbaby -a plea. (BrigantesNation, Nov 26, 2004, 15:20)
- Council reply (Pete G, Nov 26, 2004, 16:09)
- Re WK palisaded enclosures (moss, Nov 28, 2004, 07:32)
|
|
Head To Head 
Re: Silbaby -a plea. (Rhiannon)