I was reading Suave Harv's weblog with his comments about how the Arbor Low stones would look better in their original upright state - and I thought 'isn't it a recumbent circle?'. But I'm all confused now. Does anyone have any evidence either way? Have they ever found any filled in holes were the stones would have been set? What other evidence could people today look for?
 Reply | with quote | Posted by Rhiannon
31st March 2003ce
10:10 |
Recumbent or just fallen over? (Rhiannon, Mar 31, 2003, 10:10)- Re: Recumbent or just fallen over? (elderford, Mar 31, 2003, 10:16)
- Re: Recumbent or just fallen over? (FourWinds, Mar 31, 2003, 12:48)
- Re: Recumbent or just fallen over? (Kammer, Mar 31, 2003, 13:17)
- Re: Recumbent or just fallen over? (Rhiannon, Mar 31, 2003, 14:36)
- Re: Recumbent or just fallen over? (FourWinds, Mar 31, 2003, 16:27)
- Re: Recumbent or just fallen over? (broen, Mar 31, 2003, 16:59)
- Re: Recumbent or just fallen over? (broen, Mar 31, 2003, 17:44)
- Re: Recumbent or just fallen over? (pure joy, Apr 05, 2003, 22:22)
- Re: Recumbent or just fallen over? (baza, Mar 31, 2003, 19:03)
- Re: Recumbent or just fallen over? (FourWinds, Mar 31, 2003, 21:41)
- Re: Recumbent or just fallen over? (AR, Jul 06, 2004, 21:26)
- Re: Recumbent or just fallen over? (AR, Jul 06, 2004, 21:44)
|
|
Head To Head 
Top of page