But isn't this the subtlety of archaeology.
It would seem that there is something there but no-one is quiet sure what. This is where archaeology takes over from history.
How often has archaeology changed our perspective of written history? How often has fieldwork & excavation proved that what we thought was fact isn't?
I suggest some serious investigation is made to prove or disprove the loco's existence.
This e-mail is confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of University College Chichester. If you have received this e-mail in error please delete it from your system and contact the sender. UCC is a registered charity.
>>> Steve Platt <[log in to unmask]> 04/12 2:40 pm >>>
Well I've read and re-read that article and I'm still inclined to think it's
an 'urban legend'. There's not one single checkable fact, not even
circumstantial, to back up the story. It could be a loco, it could be a
carriage, it could be a tram, or it could be some tiny petrol-driven engine
that used to run on two-feet track.
I don't know about calling in Time Team. It strikes me that it's more one for