Sanctuary wrote:
I understand your point but I would have thought it unlikely that 'qualified' people would have re-erected any of the stones back out of position.
I suppose the point to make here is that regardless of how likely or unlikely you happen to think something may or may not be, are you able to show that this is/is not the case?
Sanctuary wrote:
How many of the stones does your research show were re-erected when this reconstruction took place
I'm not doing any 'research' Sanctuary! But if I were, I imagine I would begin by collating all previously recorded information about the site.
Sanctuary wrote:
If the circle is 'as was', then google earth was the perfect way to view it
I agree, of course, but there is that annoying 'if' to deal withIf we knew the results of the 19th century excavations, the details of any plans/illustrations before or at that date then we might be able to talk with more certainty. As I said, i'm not doing any 'research' but as you are it would be great if you could supply some solid info to show on what basis you are refuting the claims in the paragraph of Barnatt/Herring I copied in.
