nigelswift
|
Re: nope
Jan 22, 2019, 12:05
|
|
Do we have a modern stuff category? We ought to.
|
drewbhoy
|
Re: nope
Jan 22, 2019, 12:27
|
|
nigelswift wrote: Do we have a modern stuff category? We ought to.
Funnily enough there is new stone circle at reasonably nearby Lyne of Skene.
|
thelonious
|
Re: nope
Jan 22, 2019, 12:52
|
|
drewbhoy wrote: nigelswift wrote: Do we have a modern stuff category? We ought to.
Funnily enough there is new stone circle at reasonably nearby Lyne of Skene.
Something a little sad about the site disappearing from here. I like the idea of a modern stuff category.
|
drewbhoy
|
Re: nope
Jan 22, 2019, 12:59
|
|
thelonious wrote: drewbhoy wrote: nigelswift wrote: Do we have a modern stuff category? We ought to.
Funnily enough there is new stone circle at reasonably nearby Lyne of Skene.
Something a little sad about the site disappearing from here. I like the idea of a modern stuff category.
I removed the fieldnotes but if a new section appears I'll put them back :-)
|
ryaner
|
Re: nope
Jan 22, 2019, 18:40
|
|
I visited here http://megalithomania.com/show/site/226/ravensdale_park_miscellaneous_site.htm and liked what I saw. Took pictures but had no place to put them. Burl has a fake circle section at the back of his stone circles guidebook.
|
nigelswift
|
Re: nope
Jan 23, 2019, 05:31
|
|
Well if anyone wants to produce a coffee table book, there's a gap.
|
goffik
|
Re: nope
Jan 23, 2019, 09:52
|
|
nigelswift wrote: Do we have a modern stuff category? We ought to.
There is the "Disputed antiquity" tag that the Editors add to sites of... well, disputed antiquity. Although this one is not disputed, so it technically fails that remit, but at the same time it *could* keep it on the site.
If I were to start a counter rumour that the land owner is making it up as he doesn't want people traipsing across his land, maybe that could be a loophole? ;)
G x
|
tjj
|
Edited Jan 23, 2019, 10:23
Re: nope
Jan 23, 2019, 10:21
|
|
goffik wrote: nigelswift wrote: Do we have a modern stuff category? We ought to.
There is the "Disputed antiquity" tag that the Editors add to sites of... well, disputed antiquity. Although this one is not disputed, so it technically fails that remit, but at the same time it *could* keep it on the site.
If I were to start a counter rumour that the land owner is making it up as he doesn't want people traipsing across his land, maybe that could be a loophole? ;)
G x
I read somewhere it was about 20 years old - that arrangement of stones anyway, the actual stones themselves are of undisputed antiquity. I wonder if it was a millennium monument - a similar one has just been uncovered from the undergrowth in my town near the parish of Hayden Wick. Again thought to be about 20 years old but no information available. I can't post it here but have just sent you a 'friend' request Goff - take a look and then delete me if you wish (though I'm fairly harmless) x
|
goffik
|
Re: nope
Jan 23, 2019, 16:15
|
|
tjj wrote: I can't post it here but have just sent you a 'friend' request Goff - take a look and then delete me if you wish (though I'm fairly harmless) x
Haha! I know that! :D I accepted before I saw this reply, and I have no intention of deleting. :) You are most welcome to do so though. ;)
Thank you - I shall have a look at the pics later! :)
G x
|
GLADMAN
|
Re: Newly identified recumbent stone circle
Jan 23, 2019, 19:30
|
|
GLADMAN wrote: Are we saying even Drew didn't know about this?
He hasn't been around erecting stone circles by any chance? I expect answers.
So Drew did erect it then..... some people will do anything for attention :-)
|
