close
more_vert

Hello again

Apologies accepted on the name Goffik. However:

< whatisthat wrote:
Looking forward to the answer to this one.

Not sure there is one. >

Utter rubbish. There are obviously reasons why the editor has put Disputed Antiquity signs on them all. The individual concerned took time out to go through each site and labeled each one accordingly. It was meticulous. Hence there is a reason. The person thought it through and labeled them due to a particular bias or loss of logic. It’s quite simple. Exactly that person did such a thing is an anomaly. As whatisthat enquired quite politely:

< Looking forward to the answer to this one >

It would be nice to know, so then I can at least ensure that any cited parameters regarding the placement of holy wells here are maintained.

Many thanks - SG

Thanks... :oD

Alrighty - from what I can gather, the disputed antiquity thingy is exactly what it says! Don't get upset by it - some of mine have it too! And plenty of others' do! It really is for sites that aren't PROVEN to be of the era that TMA adheres to..!

I'd love to post all my wells here, but as most of them have no archaeological evidence to place them within the TMA remit, they are considered dubious until proven otherwise... Believe me - if the TMA Eds didn't LIKE something you've posted, it'd be gone, not just marked as disputed! :o)

Under "Submission Guidelines" (http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/submission_guidelines/) it states:
"The Modern Antiquarian focuses on megalithic sites and the ancient (i.e. prehistoric) landscape. This means we are not interested in Roman sites, Dark Ages sites, churches etc. unless they have clear prehistoric provenances (and you are prepared to tell us about them)."

So it's up to us to try to prove their antiquity (not easy - or indeed possible! - but all part of the fun)

Hope that's cleared it up a bit.

G x

PS - I love wells, and... I'm male!