The Long Man of Wilmington forum 19 room
Image by IronMan
The Long Man of Wilmington

Long Man of Wilmington — URGENT HELP NEEDED

close
more_vert
Cursuswalker C
Cursuswalker Jul 5, 2007 10:34:29
Replying to tiompan

tiompan wrote:
Old hat , not very funny and only archaeology but the first bit of this might interest some .
http://www.reading.ac.uk/bulletin/pdfs/407.pdf
The site manger was saying this on Monday. Yet when we pressed him he admitted that it could not be proved that something had not been on the site for a lot longer.

Combine that with the alignment of a large round AND long barrow on the hill above with the figure (The long barrow addresses it arguably) and you have evidence for something having been on the side of the hill a long time ago.

And it is still called a "scheduled ancient monument"

S slumpystones
slumpystones Jul 5, 2007 11:55:13
Replying to Cursuswalker

Cursuswalker wrote:
tiompan wrote:
Old hat , not very funny and only archaeology but the first bit of this might interest some .
http://www.reading.ac.uk/bulletin/pdfs/407.pdf
The site manger was saying this on Monday. Yet when we pressed him he admitted that it could not be proved that something had not been on the site for a lot longer.

Combine that with the alignment of a large round AND long barrow on the hill above with the figure (The long barrow addresses it arguably) and you have evidence for something having been on the side of the hill a long time ago.

And it is still called a "scheduled ancient monument"

That is what seems to have escaped the media moguls. They seem to have the attitude that "well it isn't as old as all that, and people go to Stonehenge and Avebury, so what's the problem?" instead of "Yes, you're right, it IS protected, we DID damage it [albeit only lightly] and yes, we ARE sorry we ever got into this mess".

Unfortunately this will probably work in their favour all the way, and they'll use TV news footage to advertise it.

I said I wasn't getting angry today...I promised!!!

T tiompan
tiompan Jul 5, 2007 12:18:19
Replying to Cursuswalker

Cursuswalker wrote:
The site manger was saying this on Monday. Yet when we pressed him he admitted that it could not be proved that something had not been on the site for a lot longer.

Combine that with the alignment of a large round AND long barrow on the hill above with the figure (The long barrow addresses it arguably) and you have evidence for something having been on the side of the hill a long time ago.

And it is still called a "scheduled ancient monument"

You can't prove a negative . You don't get antiquity by symbiosis .What period do you believe the figures dates from ?
"Scheduled ancient monument" is not a signifier of age e.g. some WW11 Pillboxes .

Like all websites everywhere, we use cookies.