It's a bit tenuous.
The Blue Stone in question isn't a tma site, rather there's the pic of the associated stone nearby, which has a dubious cup-mark, but doesn't (in my mind anyway) have enough provenance to merit a site here.
The standing stone which is posted here is a better candidate, but I reckon it could also warrant the DA flag from the Eds.
 Reply | with quote | Posted by Hob
6th January 2006ce
12:52 |
Blue stone (PeterH, Jan 04, 2006, 16:11)- Re: Blue stone (fitzcoraldo, Jan 04, 2006, 16:26)
- Re: Blue stone (StoneLifter, Jan 04, 2006, 17:42)
- Re: Blue stone (goffik, Jan 04, 2006, 18:17)
- Re: Blue stone (Hob, Jan 04, 2006, 21:18)
|
|
Head To Head 
Re: Blue stone (Kammer)