[Home]History of Stonehenge/Talk

HomePage | Recent Changes | Preferences

Revision 6 . . October 4, 2001 12:46 pm by Sjc
Revision 5 . . (edit) October 4, 2001 5:42 am by Clasqm
Revision 4 . . October 4, 2001 5:38 am by Clasqm
Revision 3 . . October 4, 2001 2:21 am by Sjc
Revision 2 . . October 4, 2001 2:12 am by Sjc
Revision 1 . . October 4, 2001 12:24 am by (logged).178.1.xxx [Freya in Welsh?]
  

Difference (from prior major revision) (no other diffs)

Added: 14a15
Archaeologists, while they are not physically there, are still picking over the bones, so to speak. It is still a major subject for archaeological speculation, and is therefore, probably, still an archaeological site. We don't know for sure that it was a monument except in the loosest possible sense of the word. Ancient: yes. Stone: certainly. But my, it attracts tourists. Therefore, how about (wait for it), ancient stone tourist attraction.:-) Best leave it as an archaeological site for the moment. Some of those druidical types will be around to work their magic on the prose in the due fullness of time in any case. sjc

HomePage | Recent Changes | Preferences
Search: