Ancient Avebury site has so much potential

Avebury stone circle

Writer Eric Crook and artist Maurice Giraffe

First published in News by

A TWO-man Avebury stone circle research team say the site should capitalise on a World Heritage boost.

The Which? Travel magazine hailed Avebury as the second greatest World Heritage site, behind only the ancient Mexican city of Monte Alban and ahead of attractions including the Great Pyramid and the Taj Mahal.

This was music to the ears of author Eric M Crook and artist Maurice Giraffe from Swindon, who have spent decades investigating not just Avebury but other ancient sites such as Stonehenge and Silbury Hill.

Mr Crook, 88, is the author of a study called Wiltshire: A Journey-man’s Tale. Many of the book’s illustrations are the work of Mr Giraffe, 55, who combines artistic and technical drawing skills to plot the relative positions of stones.

Mr Crook said of the Which? Travel accolade: “It’s fantastic for this to happen, and we would hope that maybe somebody has taken notice of our comments over the years about this place being so important.”

Mr Giraffe added: “I too am very, very pleased that Avebury has been nominated within the top 10.

“At the same time, what draws the attention is that seven of the 10 are building complexes. There is only one stone circle.

“Avebury should now improve its facilities for visitors. Shelters from the rain would be useful, and so would pathways for wheeled access around the stones. We’d like to see uplighters installed so the stones can be seen better at night.”

The two also suggest night time tours and regular grass cutting, as well as restricting access by grazing sheep.

The researchers believe the archaeological establishment has missed clues about ceremonial and navigational uses for such prehistoric places.

They say their research indicates that the surviving Avebury stones were once part of a vast amphitheatre featuring many thousands of carved human and animal faces, and these faces would have appeared to come to life in flickering firelight.

The researchers say remnants of these carvings can still be seen in fragments hacked from the stones down the years, whether for recycling or because the early Christian church objected to the old religions.

Mr Crook said: “Many churches were built with the old stones, and also other properties across Wilt-shire.”

Wiltshire: A Journeyman’s Tale costs £9.99 and can be ordered from Amazon and book shops.

Comments (28)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:37pm Mon 11 Feb 13

peatmoor pirate says...

It is special because it doesn't have all this sort of disney rubbish around it now. There are shelters from the rain, they are called the Red Lion, the National Trust cafe, the Barn, the museum and the Manor. Please don't ruin what is a lovely experience by making it into a theme park.
It is special because it doesn't have all this sort of disney rubbish around it now. There are shelters from the rain, they are called the Red Lion, the National Trust cafe, the Barn, the museum and the Manor. Please don't ruin what is a lovely experience by making it into a theme park. peatmoor pirate
  • Score: 0

8:28pm Mon 11 Feb 13

LordAshOfTheBrake says...

Luckily its outside the control of SBC; otherwise they'd approve planning permission on it..... :)

Quote "Wiltshire: A Journeyman’s Tale costs £9.99 and can be ordered from Amazon and book shops.".....

Not another free advertising masquerading as news, surely?
Luckily its outside the control of SBC; otherwise they'd approve planning permission on it..... :) Quote "Wiltshire: A Journeyman’s Tale costs £9.99 and can be ordered from Amazon and book shops."..... Not another free advertising masquerading as news, surely? LordAshOfTheBrake
  • Score: 0

8:34am Tue 12 Feb 13

Tim Newroman says...

While I agree that there doesn't need to be 'Disney rubbish' around it, Avebury IS underused.

It is the World's second greatest World Heritage site and yet we treat it like a glorified collection of garden gnomes.

I've had guests from abroad who have driven through it and not realised they'd actually seen the stones.

Still, given that there's absolutely nothing else in the area to attract or interest tourists I suppose the current set up works quite well.
While I agree that there doesn't need to be 'Disney rubbish' around it, Avebury IS underused. [p] It is the World's second greatest World Heritage site and yet we treat it like a glorified collection of garden gnomes. [p] I've had guests from abroad who have driven through it and not realised they'd actually seen the stones. [p] Still, given that there's absolutely nothing else in the area to attract or interest tourists I suppose the current set up works quite well. Tim Newroman
  • Score: 0

9:27am Tue 12 Feb 13

peatmoor pirate says...

Tim Newroman wrote:
While I agree that there doesn't need to be 'Disney rubbish' around it, Avebury IS underused.

It is the World's second greatest World Heritage site and yet we treat it like a glorified collection of garden gnomes.

I've had guests from abroad who have driven through it and not realised they'd actually seen the stones.

Still, given that there's absolutely nothing else in the area to attract or interest tourists I suppose the current set up works quite well.
How on earth can you drive through it and not see the stones?
Also, if you ever go there on any day when it is sunny, it is packed with tourists and it's impossible to park. You have only got to look at all the issues at Stonehenge where you can't get near the stones to realise the difficulties of going down that route. I cannot understand why leaving something alone rather than spoil it with tat is seen as under-utilisation. Also, the authors seem to have forgotten that Avebury is actually a living village with working farms (that's where the sheep come from).
[quote][p][bold]Tim Newroman[/bold] wrote: While I agree that there doesn't need to be 'Disney rubbish' around it, Avebury IS underused. [p] It is the World's second greatest World Heritage site and yet we treat it like a glorified collection of garden gnomes. [p] I've had guests from abroad who have driven through it and not realised they'd actually seen the stones. [p] Still, given that there's absolutely nothing else in the area to attract or interest tourists I suppose the current set up works quite well.[/p][/quote]How on earth can you drive through it and not see the stones? Also, if you ever go there on any day when it is sunny, it is packed with tourists and it's impossible to park. You have only got to look at all the issues at Stonehenge where you can't get near the stones to realise the difficulties of going down that route. I cannot understand why leaving something alone rather than spoil it with tat is seen as under-utilisation. Also, the authors seem to have forgotten that Avebury is actually a living village with working farms (that's where the sheep come from). peatmoor pirate
  • Score: 0

9:28am Tue 12 Feb 13

itsamess3 says...

"I've had guests from abroad who have driven through it and not realised they'd actually seen the stones."
Depends on which road in they used entering Avebury as there are few stones one way and many the other.
The only way to see everything is to park up and walk the routes.
There are many historic sites and towns close by too.
"I've had guests from abroad who have driven through it and not realised they'd actually seen the stones." Depends on which road in they used entering Avebury as there are few stones one way and many the other. The only way to see everything is to park up and walk the routes. There are many historic sites and towns close by too. itsamess3
  • Score: 0

9:28am Tue 12 Feb 13

JeanSaunders says...

What a stunning photograph of Avebury. I agree with peatmoor pirate. Why spoil this with more modern features? There's an amazing thing called an umbrella for sheltering from the rain for a start.
What a stunning photograph of Avebury. I agree with peatmoor pirate. Why spoil this with more modern features? There's an amazing thing called an umbrella for sheltering from the rain for a start. JeanSaunders
  • Score: 0

9:40am Tue 12 Feb 13

Tim Newroman says...

@peatmoor pirate: I should have clarified, they drove through at night. Still, you wouldn't think it possible to drive through the second greatest World Heritage site and not notice it at ANY time of the day.

I also don't know why people immediately assume that upgrading the facilities and adding extra interest would mean spoiling the place.

At the moment there's just an OK pub, some embarrassing little shops and a rather sad village hall.

The whole point would be to *improve* it. Anyone who's been to the Joshua Tree National Park would know how it can be done, and work well.

And that's been there a lot longer than Avebury...
@peatmoor pirate: I should have clarified, they drove through at night. Still, you wouldn't think it possible to drive through the second greatest World Heritage site and not notice it at ANY time of the day. [p] I also don't know why people immediately assume that upgrading the facilities and adding extra interest would mean spoiling the place. [p] At the moment there's just an OK pub, some embarrassing little shops and a rather sad village hall. [p] The whole point would be to *improve* it. Anyone who's been to the Joshua Tree National Park would know how it can be done, and work well. [p] And that's been there a lot longer than Avebury... Tim Newroman
  • Score: 0

10:35am Tue 12 Feb 13

Davey Gravey says...

Avebury should be left as it is.
Avebury should be left as it is. Davey Gravey
  • Score: 0

10:59am Tue 12 Feb 13

Tim Newroman says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
Avebury should be left as it is.
Forever?

At some point, people would have objected to The Red Lion being built there.

I suppose it says a lot about the Swindon mentality that we'd rather our heritage fall down, collapase, rot away and simply have its potential remain untapped.

Sad, really.
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: Avebury should be left as it is.[/p][/quote]Forever? [p] At some point, people would have objected to The Red Lion being built there. [p] I suppose it says a lot about the Swindon mentality that we'd rather our heritage fall down, collapase, rot away and simply have its potential remain untapped. [p] Sad, really. Tim Newroman
  • Score: 0

11:26am Tue 12 Feb 13

itsamess3 says...

"At some point, people would have objected to The Red Lion being built there"
Doubtful as it dates back a few centuries and has a link to the chap who first excavated the stones-handy having a family member living in the village. Dont worry too much though as the visitors will still flock there-and you will not see them all from the road.
"At some point, people would have objected to The Red Lion being built there" Doubtful as it dates back a few centuries and has a link to the chap who first excavated the stones-handy having a family member living in the village. Dont worry too much though as the visitors will still flock there-and you will not see them all from the road. itsamess3
  • Score: 0

11:57am Tue 12 Feb 13

Tim Newroman says...

itsamess3 wrote:
"At some point, people would have objected to The Red Lion being built there"
Doubtful as it dates back a few centuries and has a link to the chap who first excavated the stones-handy having a family member living in the village. Dont worry too much though as the visitors will still flock there-and you will not see them all from the road.
Not 'doubtful' at all. In more puritanical times there would have been many objections to a pub being built so close to the stones.

What on earth makes you think I might be 'worried' about whether people visit Avebury or not?

Even more odd that you might think I'd like to see them all from the road (whatever that's supposed to mean, we don't all pretend to set up spy cameras in pub car parks)

Very strange.
[quote][p][bold]itsamess3[/bold] wrote: "At some point, people would have objected to The Red Lion being built there" Doubtful as it dates back a few centuries and has a link to the chap who first excavated the stones-handy having a family member living in the village. Dont worry too much though as the visitors will still flock there-and you will not see them all from the road.[/p][/quote]Not 'doubtful' at all. In more puritanical times there would have been many objections to a pub being built so close to the stones. [p] What on earth makes you think I might be 'worried' about whether people visit Avebury or not? [p] Even more odd that you might think I'd like to see them all from the road (whatever that's supposed to mean, we don't all pretend to set up spy cameras in pub car parks) [p] Very strange. Tim Newroman
  • Score: 0

12:44pm Tue 12 Feb 13

The Real Librarian says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
Avebury should be left as it is.
Left as it is now, or left as it was, before being restored in the Victorian era to its current faux fake restored state.
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: Avebury should be left as it is.[/p][/quote]Left as it is now, or left as it was, before being restored in the Victorian era to its current faux fake restored state. The Real Librarian
  • Score: 0

12:53pm Tue 12 Feb 13

itsamess3 says...

whatever that's supposed to mean, we don't all pretend to set up spy cameras in pub car parks)

Oh dear--you do like to get things wrong.
You make an issue as to folk visiting historical sites and a pub thats been there for centuries--pubs-inns and ale houses have been around a very long time.
You even knock the village hall and shops-all well supported by the locals-why not complete the package by including the museum and manor house.
Hardly surprising your bid to become a councillor failed.
whatever that's supposed to mean, we don't all pretend to set up spy cameras in pub car parks) Oh dear--you do like to get things wrong. You make an issue as to folk visiting historical sites and a pub thats been there for centuries--pubs-inns and ale houses have been around a very long time. You even knock the village hall and shops-all well supported by the locals-why not complete the package by including the museum and manor house. Hardly surprising your bid to become a councillor failed. itsamess3
  • Score: 0

1:28pm Tue 12 Feb 13

house on the hill says...

Is there anyone else out there who actually wonders what all the fuss is about? what percentage of people in the area have actually been there are really that interested would be a useful figure to know before a Crook and a Giraffe are let loose on it?
Is there anyone else out there who actually wonders what all the fuss is about? what percentage of people in the area have actually been there are really that interested would be a useful figure to know before a Crook and a Giraffe are let loose on it? house on the hill
  • Score: 0

1:31pm Tue 12 Feb 13

PJC says...

There is nothing wrong with it already. I haven't been as often since they started charging for the car park, but it's a lovely place and is usually busy during fine weather. I don't understand the mowing/restricting sheep thing. I like the sheep. When we went on a school trip in the 70's, one had fallen onto its back and got wedged against a tree, so me and my friends tipped it back onto its feet. Wonderful memory. Please don't spoil it.
There is nothing wrong with it already. I haven't been as often since they started charging for the car park, but it's a lovely place and is usually busy during fine weather. I don't understand the mowing/restricting sheep thing. I like the sheep. When we went on a school trip in the 70's, one had fallen onto its back and got wedged against a tree, so me and my friends tipped it back onto its feet. Wonderful memory. Please don't spoil it. PJC
  • Score: 0

3:17pm Tue 12 Feb 13

Tim Newroman says...

itsamesssoontobe4 wrote...

Oh dear--you do like to get things wrong.


itsamesssoontobe4 wrote...

Hardly surprising your bid to become a councillor failed.


Oh, the irony

Do ensure that you have at least a basic grasp of reality before making such statements. Making such fundamental errors really does not serve your reputation well.
[quote][b]itsamesssoontobe4[/b] wrote... [p] Oh dear--you do like to get things wrong. [/quote] [quote][b]itsamesssoontobe4[/b] wrote... [p] Hardly surprising your bid to become a councillor failed. [/quote] [p] Oh, the irony [p] Do ensure that you have at least a basic grasp of reality before making such statements. Making such fundamental errors really does not serve your reputation well. Tim Newroman
  • Score: 0

3:46pm Tue 12 Feb 13

itsamess3 says...

Basic reality is something you do not understand as you persistently take issues off post and misquote claims.
Now you turn to veiled threats.
You have knocked everything about the status of Avebury which is simply a historic site dating back to neolithic times and visited by folk from all over the world-yes just to see 3 circles of stones- the locals would gladly show you the houses built from the missing stones--all for free--and it needs no change.
Basic reality is something you do not understand as you persistently take issues off post and misquote claims. Now you turn to veiled threats. You have knocked everything about the status of Avebury which is simply a historic site dating back to neolithic times and visited by folk from all over the world-yes just to see 3 circles of stones- the locals would gladly show you the houses built from the missing stones--all for free--and it needs no change. itsamess3
  • Score: 0

4:31pm Tue 12 Feb 13

Davey Gravey says...

Tim Newroman wrote:
itsamesssoontobe4 wrote...

Oh dear--you do like to get things wrong.


itsamesssoontobe4 wrote...

Hardly surprising your bid to become a councillor failed.


Oh, the irony

Do ensure that you have at least a basic grasp of reality before making such statements. Making such fundamental errors really does not serve your reputation well.
You like to dish it out but cannot take it don't you. Crying to site moderators then doing the above. Ironic eh....
[quote][p][bold]Tim Newroman[/bold] wrote: [quote][b]itsamesssoontobe4[/b] wrote... [p] Oh dear--you do like to get things wrong. [/quote] [quote][b]itsamesssoontobe4[/b] wrote... [p] Hardly surprising your bid to become a councillor failed. [/quote] [p] Oh, the irony [p] Do ensure that you have at least a basic grasp of reality before making such statements. Making such fundamental errors really does not serve your reputation well.[/p][/quote]You like to dish it out but cannot take it don't you. Crying to site moderators then doing the above. Ironic eh.... Davey Gravey
  • Score: 0

6:02pm Tue 12 Feb 13

female resident says...

I was under the impression that it was as it is and that parking charges were high in order to deter people from going there. Thousands of people visit each year and when thousands of people visit anywhere there is the issue of corrosion of paths and the risk of spoiling a place. Let is stay as it is, anyone truly interested will still go.
I was under the impression that it was as it is and that parking charges were high in order to deter people from going there. Thousands of people visit each year and when thousands of people visit anywhere there is the issue of corrosion of paths and the risk of spoiling a place. Let is stay as it is, anyone truly interested will still go. female resident
  • Score: 0

6:29pm Tue 12 Feb 13

Tim Newroman says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
Tim Newroman wrote:
itsamesssoontobe4 wrote...

Oh dear--you do like to get things wrong.


itsamesssoontobe4 wrote...

Hardly surprising your bid to become a councillor failed.


Oh, the irony

Do ensure that you have at least a basic grasp of reality before making such statements. Making such fundamental errors really does not serve your reputation well.
You like to dish it out but cannot take it don't you. Crying to site moderators then doing the above. Ironic eh....
Wow, jeez, let it go.
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tim Newroman[/bold] wrote: [quote][b]itsamesssoontobe4[/b] wrote... [p] Oh dear--you do like to get things wrong. [/quote] [quote][b]itsamesssoontobe4[/b] wrote... [p] Hardly surprising your bid to become a councillor failed. [/quote] [p] Oh, the irony [p] Do ensure that you have at least a basic grasp of reality before making such statements. Making such fundamental errors really does not serve your reputation well.[/p][/quote]You like to dish it out but cannot take it don't you. Crying to site moderators then doing the above. Ironic eh....[/p][/quote]Wow, jeez, let it go. Tim Newroman
  • Score: 0

6:39pm Tue 12 Feb 13

Tim Newroman says...

itsamess3 wrote:
Basic reality is something you do not understand as you persistently take issues off post and misquote claims.
Now you turn to veiled threats.
You have knocked everything about the status of Avebury which is simply a historic site dating back to neolithic times and visited by folk from all over the world-yes just to see 3 circles of stones- the locals would gladly show you the houses built from the missing stones--all for free--and it needs no change.
Utterly untrue. I have not 'knocked everything about the status of Avebury' *at all*.

In fact, I seem to be one of the few people who sees it for what it really could be, rather than just wanting it to remain as it is. No progress, no improvement, no upgrading facilities... what a dismal lack of imagination and aspiration.

In any case, my comment to you was actually about how fundamentally wrong you are, and have proven yourself to be with your personal comments about me on this website.

Which, so that Davey Gravey doesn't start crying, doesn't bother me in the slightest, I just like to correct you on the numerous occasions you get things wrong.

Do try harder as to getting things remotely correct, old chap.
[quote][p][bold]itsamess3[/bold] wrote: Basic reality is something you do not understand as you persistently take issues off post and misquote claims. Now you turn to veiled threats. You have knocked everything about the status of Avebury which is simply a historic site dating back to neolithic times and visited by folk from all over the world-yes just to see 3 circles of stones- the locals would gladly show you the houses built from the missing stones--all for free--and it needs no change.[/p][/quote]Utterly untrue. I have not 'knocked everything about the status of Avebury' *at all*. [p] In fact, I seem to be one of the few people who sees it for what it really could be, rather than just wanting it to remain as it is. No progress, no improvement, no upgrading facilities... what a dismal lack of imagination and aspiration. [p] In any case, my comment to you was actually about how fundamentally wrong you are, and have proven yourself to be with your personal comments about me on this website. [p] Which, so that Davey Gravey doesn't start crying, doesn't bother me in the slightest, I just like to correct you on the numerous occasions you get things wrong. [p] Do try harder as to getting things remotely correct, old chap. Tim Newroman
  • Score: 0

6:42pm Tue 12 Feb 13

PJC says...

female resident wrote:
I was under the impression that it was as it is and that parking charges were high in order to deter people from going there. Thousands of people visit each year and when thousands of people visit anywhere there is the issue of corrosion of paths and the risk of spoiling a place. Let is stay as it is, anyone truly interested will still go.
They only started charging for parking once the National Trust stuck their oar in, complete with registration booth at the footpath exit from the car park...
[quote][p][bold]female resident[/bold] wrote: I was under the impression that it was as it is and that parking charges were high in order to deter people from going there. Thousands of people visit each year and when thousands of people visit anywhere there is the issue of corrosion of paths and the risk of spoiling a place. Let is stay as it is, anyone truly interested will still go.[/p][/quote]They only started charging for parking once the National Trust stuck their oar in, complete with registration booth at the footpath exit from the car park... PJC
  • Score: 0

8:25pm Tue 12 Feb 13

Davey Gravey says...

Tim Newroman wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
Tim Newroman wrote:
itsamesssoontobe4 wrote...

Oh dear--you do like to get things wrong.


itsamesssoontobe4 wrote...

Hardly surprising your bid to become a councillor failed.


Oh, the irony

Do ensure that you have at least a basic grasp of reality before making such statements. Making such fundamental errors really does not serve your reputation well.
You like to dish it out but cannot take it don't you. Crying to site moderators then doing the above. Ironic eh....
Wow, jeez, let it go.
Haha it really doesn't bother me. I'm not so sad to report people. People can say what they like. I find the legal threats, etc, etc that people have put on here funny. As do I the desperate measures people will go to have the last word or claim victory on here. I'll highlight the hypocrisy though.
[quote][p][bold]Tim Newroman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tim Newroman[/bold] wrote: [quote][b]itsamesssoontobe4[/b] wrote... [p] Oh dear--you do like to get things wrong. [/quote] [quote][b]itsamesssoontobe4[/b] wrote... [p] Hardly surprising your bid to become a councillor failed. [/quote] [p] Oh, the irony [p] Do ensure that you have at least a basic grasp of reality before making such statements. Making such fundamental errors really does not serve your reputation well.[/p][/quote]You like to dish it out but cannot take it don't you. Crying to site moderators then doing the above. Ironic eh....[/p][/quote]Wow, jeez, let it go.[/p][/quote]Haha it really doesn't bother me. I'm not so sad to report people. People can say what they like. I find the legal threats, etc, etc that people have put on here funny. As do I the desperate measures people will go to have the last word or claim victory on here. I'll highlight the hypocrisy though. Davey Gravey
  • Score: 0

8:01am Wed 13 Feb 13

Tim Newroman says...

It does bother you, otherwise you wouldn't continually keep going on about it. As I said before, I only reported a few posts because I'd never bothered before but was getting bored of people reporting mine for no good reason. Fight fire with fire, as they say. Nothing personal.

I do agree with your other points though. I think everyone has got the popcorn in for the day Messy faces Bobfm in court. Although it'll have likely turned to dust by the time that (doesn't) happen.
It does bother you, otherwise you wouldn't continually keep going on about it. As I said before, I only reported a few posts because I'd never bothered before but was getting bored of people reporting mine for no good reason. Fight fire with fire, as they say. Nothing personal. [p] I do agree with your other points though. I think everyone has got the popcorn in for the day Messy faces Bobfm in court. Although it'll have likely turned to dust by the time that (doesn't) happen. Tim Newroman
  • Score: 0

10:07am Wed 13 Feb 13

itsamess3 says...

Tim etc
Let me clear a few things up for you.
You heavily criticised the red lion the shops and village hall--all of which have nothing to do with the National Trust who are responsible for the stone circles.
The pub itself does feature a deep well attributed to one of the archiologists who escavated more of the stones in the 1600s and there was an inn on that site then.
You also claimed The Joshua Tree National Park pre-dates Avebury stones--their site is quite clear that they can only trace back 5500yrs and development took place in 1936. Avebury stones have been dated back to neolithic times--quite some difference.
Nice to hear you admit you have been reported before-however i have never needed to report anyone yet.
Finally you obviously missed a recent post where i stated an appeal has been listed at the CCA on the warned list in relation to an alleged miscarriage of justice in the 80s solely on forensic evidence gained. I am not a party in the case-i simply asked for the case to be examined.
Do be a little more observant-then you could accurately comment
Tim etc Let me clear a few things up for you. You heavily criticised the red lion the shops and village hall--all of which have nothing to do with the National Trust who are responsible for the stone circles. The pub itself does feature a deep well attributed to one of the archiologists who escavated more of the stones in the 1600s and there was an inn on that site then. You also claimed The Joshua Tree National Park pre-dates Avebury stones--their site is quite clear that they can only trace back 5500yrs and development took place in 1936. Avebury stones have been dated back to neolithic times--quite some difference. Nice to hear you admit you have been reported before-however i have never needed to report anyone yet. Finally you obviously missed a recent post where i stated an appeal has been listed at the CCA on the warned list in relation to an alleged miscarriage of justice in the 80s solely on forensic evidence gained. I am not a party in the case-i simply asked for the case to be examined. Do be a little more observant-then you could accurately comment itsamess3
  • Score: 0

4:42pm Wed 13 Feb 13

Tim Newroman says...

@itsamess: so, you readily admit that I didn't criticise Avebury Stones then? Which is what I said. I also clearly stated that The Red Lion was an 'OK pub' - in which language, exactly, does that translate to 'heavily criticising' it?

As for the Joshu Tree National Park, your poor knowledge and limited research abilities have let you down, again. Do allow me to educate you about it's origins:


The rock formations of Joshua Tree National Park were formed 100 million years ago from the cooling of magma beneath the surface


Now then, dear boy, do try and convince me that the Avebury Stones were moved and assembled prior to 100 million years ago.

Once Bob appears in court you might be vindicated. Until then, nobody actually believes you. Do realise that, there's a good fellow.
@itsamess: so, you readily admit that I didn't criticise Avebury Stones then? Which is what I said. I also clearly stated that The Red Lion was an 'OK pub' - in which language, exactly, does that translate to 'heavily criticising' it? [p] As for the Joshu Tree National Park, your poor knowledge and limited research abilities have let you down, again. Do allow me to educate you about it's origins: [p] [quote] The rock formations of Joshua Tree National Park were formed 100 million years ago from the cooling of magma beneath the surface [/quote] [p] Now then, dear boy, do try and convince me that the Avebury Stones were moved and assembled prior to 100 million years ago. [p] Once Bob appears in court you might be vindicated. Until then, nobody actually believes you. Do realise that, there's a good fellow. Tim Newroman
  • Score: 0

6:01pm Wed 13 Feb 13

itsamess3 says...

The rock formations of Joshua Tree National Park were formed 100 million years ago from the cooling of magma beneath the surface.

Now then, dear boy, do try and convince me that the Avebury Stones were moved and assembled prior to 100 million years ago.

Grasping at straws there chappy. You really do need to get down to your local library and study how this little old planet of ours was formed and what was there and how it has changed-and is still changing. Then you would know that the areas covered by the Joshua is constantly on the move.
As said you need to study your history periods-particularly the neolithic periods.
The difference being the stone circles were moved to Avebury as with Stonehenge and the prior Woodhenge. Joshua was developed as a tourist attraction in 1936 and still faces major road repairs constantly due to the moving sands as it is mostly desert.
As i have said--i have acheived my aims on the other matter with a lot of help from folks on this site and other sites highlighting porkies.
The rock formations of Joshua Tree National Park were formed 100 million years ago from the cooling of magma beneath the surface. Now then, dear boy, do try and convince me that the Avebury Stones were moved and assembled prior to 100 million years ago. Grasping at straws there chappy. You really do need to get down to your local library and study how this little old planet of ours was formed and what was there and how it has changed-and is still changing. Then you would know that the areas covered by the Joshua is constantly on the move. As said you need to study your history periods-particularly the neolithic periods. The difference being the stone circles were moved to Avebury as with Stonehenge and the prior Woodhenge. Joshua was developed as a tourist attraction in 1936 and still faces major road repairs constantly due to the moving sands as it is mostly desert. As i have said--i have acheived my aims on the other matter with a lot of help from folks on this site and other sites highlighting porkies. itsamess3
  • Score: 0

8:18pm Wed 13 Feb 13

Tim Newroman says...

@itsamess3: I'd give up now if I were you, as it's clear you've no idea what the Joshua Tree National Park really is.

Avebury was man-made, Joshua Tree was natural, long before man even existed. End of discussion, although I realise you'll try and continue to pretend you aren't wrong.
@itsamess3: I'd give up now if I were you, as it's clear you've no idea what the Joshua Tree National Park really is. [p] Avebury was man-made, Joshua Tree was natural, long before man even existed. End of discussion, although I realise you'll try and continue to pretend you aren't wrong. Tim Newroman
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree