If you want a supportive opinion, Nigel -
I think you (or someone) should just add Silbaby as a site. Then all the photos, comments and forum threads can be collected together for easy access.
After all. I know we don't want loads of 'possibles' on TMA but this one has already been debated by people on here who clearly have detailed local knowledge of the area, and who don't routinely suggest every molehill in the landscape as a Genuine Prehistoric Site.
So just do it (I say).
Modern Antiquarians are allowed to (re)discover things.
Reply | with quote | Posted by Rhiannon 23rd November 2004ce 10:02 |
Silbaby -a plea. (nigelswift, Nov 23, 2004, 08:25)- Re: Silbaby -a plea. (jimit, Nov 23, 2004, 08:29)
- Re: Silbaby -a plea. (Jane, Nov 23, 2004, 09:08)
- Re: Silbaby -a plea. (StoneLifter, Nov 23, 2004, 09:16)
- Re: Silbaby -a plea. (smallblueplanet, Nov 23, 2004, 09:42)
- Re: Silbaby -a plea. (Rhiannon, Nov 23, 2004, 10:02)
- Re: Silbaby -a plea. (jimit, Nov 23, 2004, 16:24)
- Silbaby - a suggestion. (Kammer, Nov 23, 2004, 17:16)
- More evidence? (ocifant, Nov 23, 2004, 20:55)
- West Kennett enclosures (Rhiannon, Nov 25, 2004, 13:57)
- Re: Silbaby -a plea. (BrigantesNation, Nov 26, 2004, 15:20)
- Council reply (Pete G, Nov 26, 2004, 16:09)
- Re WK palisaded enclosures (moss, Nov 28, 2004, 07:32)
|
|