Phew! That's a real poser for TMA regulators. According to Anne Ross, ogham first arose in Ireland in the 3rd century a.d. O.k., in England, Wales, and southern Scotland, that's well into the Roman period and not acceptable for TMA. But Ireland and northern Scotland never had a Roman period. So where does TMA draw the line there? Are we really going to allow Irish and northern Scottish ogham, but exclude English, Welsh and southern Scottish ogham?

I suppose the logical final parameter would be 1 b.c. across the board. But that will give us problems when it comes to sites like the Old Wife's Well, which probably reflects a Roman name for a belief - and a site - that existed before they came.

'Pre-Christian' and 'Pagan' aren't much help either, witness Littlestone's thread 'Circles under Churches'. And what do we say to Essex readers? They accepted Christianity from Canterbury, later rejected it, and then accepted it again from Lindisfarne-trained St. Cedd. Do we accept material from the interim period when they were 're-born pagans'. or not?

Julian Cope's original intention was very simple - stone circles, barrows, etc., are all very clear-cut pre-historic items. But at TMA's present state of development, it's much more difficult. Beliefs were fluid, and over-lapped all the time. Pre-Roman, for example, is not the same as pre-Christian, and neither 'Roman' nor 'Christian' means the same in every area of the British Isles anyway. I'm beginning to wonder how long we can go on hiding under Julian's original parameters.

Come on, Regulators - I think Branwen's question needs addressing now. We've come too far not to. Ogham in Ireland but not in Wales simply doesn't work.

Why not open a new thread entitled 'Where would you like this site to set its parameters?' Leave it open fora pre-stated period - say, 3 months - and then issue new guidelines to suit majority opinion.

Any views on that?