"I've never assumed its natural because of the stukeley sketch."
That's fair enough. It's excellent to have some (fairly*) reliable old evidence.
Even if it is totally natural it doesn't necessarily detract anything from it. In fact, to me, it actually adds to its importance, as this would mean that Silbury was based upon it, ruling out the possibility that it is a pale immitation of Silbury.
* I say fairly only because of lack of precision etc.
 Reply | with quote | Posted by FourWinds
6th May 2004ce
12:46 |
Silbury Mound (Littlestone, May 05, 2004, 17:04)- Re: Silbury Mound (Pete G, May 05, 2004, 17:09)
- Re: Silbury Mound (jimit, May 06, 2004, 00:01)
- Re: Silbury Mound (goffik, May 06, 2004, 07:10)
- Re: Silbury Mound (nigelswift, May 06, 2004, 08:02)
- Re: Silbury Mound (Littlestone, May 06, 2004, 08:34)
- Re: Silbury Mound (FourWinds, May 06, 2004, 09:08)
- Re: Silbury Mound (Pete G, May 06, 2004, 11:22)
- Re: Silbury Mound (Pete G, May 06, 2004, 11:33)
- Re: Silbury Mound (Steve Gray, May 06, 2004, 11:36)
- Re: Silbury Mound (FourWinds, May 06, 2004, 11:47)
- Re: Silbury Mound (Pete G, May 06, 2004, 12:11)
- Re: Silbury Mound (FourWinds, May 06, 2004, 12:46)
- Re: Silbury Mound (Littlestone, May 06, 2004, 20:09)
- Shh... Gordon might be listening (Steve Gray, May 06, 2004, 11:33)
- Is this a drawing of Silbaby? (Pete G, May 06, 2004, 13:16)
|
|
Head To Head 
Re: Silbury Mound (Pete G)